SLATE has started a new feature, “Kerryism of the Day,” chronicling the senator’s rhetorical lapses and excesses. In response, Eugene Volokh has had some good fun pointing out Slate’s own errors and misunderstandings, as well as Kerry’s — here, here, here, and here.
In the statement that has generated the most comment Kerry was asked about his response to Bush’s opposition to gay marriage. Here is his reply:
I believe that the president of the United States should not use the Constitution of the United States for election purposes during an election year. It’s a document that we haven’t touched, certainly with respect to the Bill of Rights, for years, and I don’t think it should be used for the purpose of driving a political wedge through America.
Eugene has written at length (see above) on the substance of this comment as it refers, of course, to gay marriage and the Bill of Rights. But Kerry’s quoted statement doesn’t actually refer to gay marriage, or rather it argues that one’s attitude toward, say, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage should be a subset of one’s more general views about “touching” the Bill of Rights or using the Constitution for political purposes.
But does that more general view make any sense, and in any event does Kerry really believe it? I don’t recall, for example, that he opposed the Equal Rights Amendment. Or to take an example closer to current concerns, many people believe that the Patriot Act is a serious infringement on the Bill of Rights. If a presidential candidate shared this view, would it be inappropriate for him to make that argument a central part of his campaign? Wouldn’t doing so be using the Constitution for an election purpose during an election year? If the Supreme Court were to uphold the most obnoxious provisions of the Patriot Act, should a president or a presidential candidate refrain from proposing an amendment to undo that decision?
Increasingly, Kerry’s ponderous comments drive a political wedge through good sense.
The Constitution is the ultimate political document. Its creation resulted eventually in a pretty major wedge being driven right through the Republic. Civil War, it was called in some parts. Happened a long time ago and poor little froggy John probably didn’t hear much about it at his Swiss schools. And Bush is supposed to be the dumb one?
Amending the Constitution:
John Rosenberg argues against the “Untouchable Constitution” view.
I’m going to have peruse and chew, peruse and chew, peruse and chew.
“It’s a document that we haven’t touched, certainly with respect to the Bill of Rights, for years.”
If he’s talking about the Democrats, he got that right.
Heh.