Republicans and Political Madness

Republicans and Political Madness
by Christopher Brauchli
August 8, 2010

Iowa is the state that has the distinction, every four years, of selecting the next person to be the president of the United States. Mindful of its importance, the Republican Party of that state takes great pains to carefully articulate its beliefs so as to be worthy of the place in the electoral process it enjoys. In its most recent state convention it adopted a platform that consisted of 387 planks and principles.

The second statement of principles that begins the document sets the tone by solemnly declaring that “America is Good.” Some things in America, however, are not good. Paragraph 2.09 says that “we are opposed to protecting mountain lions, cougars, wolves, elk, moose, and black bear or similar dangerous animals.” Paragraph 2.08 deals with semantics in a way that is probably mysterious to a non-Iowan. It says that “We support the definition of manure as a natural fertilizer.” It is not clear who is attacking the definition.

The most important section of the platform is 7.19 . That section calls for the “reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th Amendment in today’s Constitution.” There is considerable difference in the two versions and an excellent article by Jerry Adler in Newsweek contains a comprehensive description of the earlier version. The 13th Amendment now in the Constitution abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude (except as criminal punishment) and gives Congress the power to enact appropriate legislation. The drafters of Iowa’s Republican party favor what they believe to be an earlier version that has nothing to do with slavery. It was introduced in 1810 by Sen. Philip Reed of Maryland and provided: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” (This is not the same as stripping citizenship from children of illegal immigrants by getting rid of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution a possibility such luminaries as Senators McCain, Graham and others suggest should be considered by Congress.)

Iowans believe that this Amendment was adopted and should be in the Constitution in place of the one that is now there. Slavery being gone, there is no real reason to have an amendment abolishing it nor would its abolition reverse emancipation. According to Mr. Adler, he asked the state Republican Communications Director, Danielle Plogman, whether Iowans wanted to reverse emancipation and she assured him that was not the purpose. It’s a safe bet none of those voting for the restoration of the old 13th (that Mr. Adler’s column suggests was never the real 13th Amendment) realized that they would be abolishing the abolition of slavery amendment in favor of protecting the country from citizens receiving honors from “any emperor, king, prince or foreign power.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/08-4

But if you repeal the 13th Amendment, that opens the door towards legalizing slavery all over again.

Reminds me of Bush's "It's your money" in order to get his tax cuts passed. Turned the surplus into our monstrous deficit.

You see because he accepted the Nobel he received money from a foreign power so he gets his citizenship stripped away.

What they are not thinking through is that Ronald Reagan has a knighthood. Which would strip him of his citizenship too. Knight of the order of the right order of the Bath or something like that. Its for dignitaries but a British, you know the guys we fought, Knighthood all the same.

Shame to re-name that D.C, airport and all that.

with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, period.

sw