Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
David Pakman: Tina Dupuy is the Managing Editor of www.CrooksAndLiars.com. She's got a great
new column out about this obsession that many Republicans seem to have with amending the
Constitution. And I have to say, Tina, I read the column; there's... I don't know that I
would use the term "obsession", but there's a lot of talk on the left also about amending
the Constitution to overturn the effect of Citizens United, so it is on both sides, right?
What's the difference?
Tina Dupuy: Well, I wouldn't say that. I would say that when Republicans want to amend the
Constitution, they want to give people fewer rights. So they want women to have the government
subject them to, you know, regulating their womb, which is the Personhood Amendment that
they suggested on Saturday night at the Huckabee Forum.
They want to take away the citizenship of children who are born here because of who
their parents are, which is a throwback to an old English law called Corruption of Blood,
and one of the many reasons we fought a war so that we could stand on our own as human
beings, as individuals, and not be judged and punished by the sins of our fathers. But
they want to bring that back, as far as citizenship goes.
David: That sounds nice. So when we look at the potential to actually amend the Constitution,
based on the requirements, you said, for corporations are people, is that more likely, or is that
still a very, very big, big hill to climb?
Dupuy: Well, it's actually, you know, in my opinion, both. We have Democrats who say that
they support the amendment, 70%, independents who say that they support it, 70%, even Republicans,
60% of Republicans support this kind of amendment. So yes, I think that it is... has a broad
base of support, which could make it more likely, but also, anytime you amend the Constitution,
this is like, this is a huge endeavor that takes, you know, years. It's not something
you just do over a weekend and go, wouldn't this be a fantastic idea?
That was intentional. It was intended to be very deliberate and to make Americans come
together and decide this, you know, with, you know, a supermajority across the country.
So I think the answer to your question is really both.
David: When talking to a lot of conservatives about the Constitution, at the mere suggestion
that maybe not everything that was in the Constitution originally is particularly relevant
today, there's so much anger, how could I possibly insult the sacred document of the
Constitution? And it seems to be lost on a lot of these people that if the Constitution
was perfect to start with, we wouldn't have had over 20 amendments to it already.
And that seems to, number one, that seems to be pushed aside, but secondly, doesn't
it stand to reason that when something is written at the very start of a country, changes
may be necessary as that country goes from one phase through industrialization into kind
of the phase we are now, or am I... am I wrong about that? Am I insulting the Constitution?
Dupuy: All right, well, first off, you said "reason" and "Republicans" and "Constitution"
in the same kind of couple of sentences there, which are a little incongruous in the first
place.
David: Right.
Dupuy: Yeah, it's like, I love the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment is the best
amendment ever, and everything in the Constitution is perfect. And it's like woah, woah, woah,
check this out, the Second Amendment? Not in the original Constitution. Ratified later,
interestingly enough.
I know, I agree with that statement, and I think that we can have a reasonable discussion
about the Constitution, but I think that this, you know, using, or pretending that the Constitution
is scripture, that it's a holy text, is detrimental to our country. I think that the Founding
Fathers, a lot of them didn't agree with each other, so you are going to find a Founding
Father who probably agrees with you, that doesn't mean that what they thought got into
the Constitution.
I think that the Founding Fathers had no idea the country would last this long. They thought
they would all be arrested in a couple of years and executed. You know, like this would
be really shocking to them, also, that they were kind of deified would be shocking to
them.
So yeah, no, I think that the... that our morays have changed, you know, how we view
women has changed, how we view minorities, how we view immigrants has changed.
How we view England has changed. We were really, you know, kind of ticked off at England, and
now they're, you know, our greatest ally, and we like them because they speak English.
So you know, I mean, you're right, it stands to reason that, you know, we should have a
frank discussion about this founding document and what that means, because right now, you
know, at least what I'm hearing from the Occupiers is that a lot of them really thought that
if we had a, you know, a community organizer from Chicago's South Side, that that would
fix everything, and everything that we had, and trickle-down economics and all this economic
inequality that we've suffered from and the lost decade of the last 10 years under the
Bush administration, would all be kind of made better because we would have this guy
who the right promised was radical.
David: Right, and you know, the other thing you mentioned also in there is Founding Fathers.
And I think that's interesting, because you refer to the Mike Huckabee Republican Forum
whatever, I tuned in to a little bit of it, and when Newt Gingrich was sitting in the
chair, one of the questions from the incredibly bizarre panel of three Republican attorneys
general, which was just one of the strangest things I've ever seen...
Dupuy: Love-fest. It was really weird, it was like Obama's the worst thing that's ever
happened, what do you think about that?
David: It was. And one of the questions asked to Newt Gingrich was who's your favorite Founding
Father, and I just thought it was... it was such a bizarre question. I mean, it's like
what's your favorite Bible passage, which is, the mere fact that the question is taken
seriously suggests a real problem to me in how we're picking these presidential candidates.
Dupuy: Right. Right. David, what is your favorite stripe on the flag?
David: [Laughs] Right. The third white one down from the top.
Dupuy: There you go. Like, yeah, no, it's ridiculous. But I mean, it was... it was supposed
to be ridiculous. It was supposed to be, you know, this kind of... I guess it was trying
to show Republicans that they really shouldn't be depressed about their candidates.
David: Right.
Dupuy: I don't really know what the softball questions were. I don't think that that actually
helps the GOP in any meaningful way. I think that they should be much tougher on these
candidates, because they are going to go against an incumbent, and if they really want to win
the presidency, they can't just sabotage the nation, they actually might have to have someone
that people can vote for. But you know, I'm not a strategist. I, you know, I just report
the facts. [Laughs]
David: Yeah, no, absolutely. And there was nothing more pathetic than the questions from
that Pam Bondi, who seemed to be simply reading them, and not even reading them very well.
Strangest debate so far, but I think the Newsmax Trump debate might top it. We'll have to see.
Dupuy: That's a wonderful Christmas present. Two days after Christmas, we'll all be, you
know, in a sugar coma, and then there'll be Trump. I mean, I can't... you know, there'll
be sugar plums dancing in my head.
David: Makes me glad I'm Jewish, I don't have to worry about Christmas presents like that.
Tina Dupuy, Managing Editor of www.CrooksAndLiars.com, keep up the good work, good to see you.
Dupuy: Thanks, David.
Transcript provided by Subscriptorium Multimedia Linguistic Services. For transcripts, translations,
captions, and subtitles, or for more information, visit www.Subscriptorium.com, or write us
at subscriptorium@gmail.com.