To attack someone's views on the Constitution, you should probably respect & understand the Constitution

Just sayin.

Darrell Issa, whom I'm ashamed to admit represents my home state, has decided that since the whole birth control debate blew up in his face, he would begin a new attack on President Obama.

via ThinkProgress.org

ISSA: We’re going to establish a very different policy. One, that we have a president who will respect the Constitution, not try to convert it to some [inaudible] South African Constitution.

Issa likely conflated the erroneous accusation that President Obama wants “some South African Constitution” with an equally erroneous accusation that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prefers the South African Constitution that has recently infected right-wing commentary.

Earlier this month, Ginsburg told an audience in Egypt that other countries’ constitutions may be better models for their burgeoning democracy than the United States Constitution because more recently drafted constitutions are often more precise in laying out individual rights. If Issa had bothered to the entire interview, however, he would have heard her stirring praise for the First Amendment, her references to the “genius” of our Constitution, and her statement about how powerful it is that our Constitution places power in “We the People.” Moreover, if Issa paid attention to the views of Ginsburg’s conservative colleagues, he would know that conservative Justice Antonin Scalia made a similar point when he testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the Soviet Union’s bill of rights “was much better than ours.”

Oh, Issa. Right after you admitted you're a douchebag, you obviously feel the need to prove to us that you really meant it. I challenge you to just simply stand on the floor of the House and yell out, "I'm a douchebag!" Then you won't have to keep making all these douchey moves to prove it to us. Plus, I'll let you in on a little secret: we already know.

And as to your contention that you will have a President who will respect the Constitution, you already have one. Not like the POTUS wannabes of the GOP primary race, who frankly want to ignore anything in the Constitution they don't like. Let's provide a few examples, shall we?

Exhibit A:
My buddy and yours, Rick Santorum. He has flat-out said he will not respect the separation of Church and State. That he will force his religion and religious beliefs on the entire country, whether they want it or not (oh, and recent polls indicate, duh, they don't want it). “I don’t believe in an America where the separation between church and state is absolute.” I know he doesn't believe that this is what the founding fathers intended, because he's said so several times, but I beg to differ.

Last I checked, these men were our founding fathers:

~ Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
- George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)

~ "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

~ "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
- James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

~ "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
- (Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

~ "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith."
- Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776.)

~ " ... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter, Danbury Baptist Assn. January 1, 1802

~ "When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin, Statesman, Inventor, Author, Letter to Dr. Price.

And some other Presidents' remarks on it:
~ "Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State, and that in my action as President of the United States I recognized no distinction of creeds in my appointments office." 
James K. Polk

~ "Declare church and state forever separate and distinct; but each free within their proper spheres."
Ulysses S. Grant, Seventh annual message, Congress December 7, 1875

~ "I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
Theodore Roosevelt, Address, New York, October 12, 1915

And of course, Santorum's favorite quote of them all - the one that makes him want to puke his guts up:

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish - where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
John F. Kennedy

Then there's this little tidbit from the US Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Oh yeah. That.

NB: Today, Santorum backed off the "I want to vomit" statement a bit, while still contending that his beliefs are correct. If he no longer wants to vomit, I can only assume that he received some sort of anti-nausea medication, paid for by his federally funded government healthcare pension plan. Nice.

Exhibit B:
Ron Paul, everyone's favorite whacko. He thinks the entire Constitution is unConstitutional. And that's pretty tough to do, given the whole circular reference there. I will admit to a certain fascination every time he opens his mouth. Kind of like a circus act that takes your breath away with its daring do. Or in Paul's case, daring doo-doo.

Exhibit C:
Newt Gingrich (I throw up a little in my mouth every time I write, say, or think his name). He's the hypocritical dude who, as Speaker of the House, impeached President Clinton for doing less than he was actually doing at the time. Clinton at least only got a blowjob (or four). Gingrich, at the same time as he was leading the charge to prosecute Clinton in the House,  cheated on his wife (and his other wife) in a full-blown sexual affair. And oh yeah, he wanted to keep his wife on the side, too. Open marriage ahoy! Then he left his wife for the other woman, whom he now wants us to respect as First Lady. Ummm, yeah. Oh yes, and he was ousted by his own party for ethics violations. Lovely man. Anyway, Gingrich has flat-out said that he will ignore any Supreme Court ruling that he does not agree with. Hello? This is the exact reason we have checks and balances written into the Constitution. And the exact reason that the Supreme Court's word is final. He has also said he'll just remove any judge who makes a decision he doesn't agree with. Well, ok then.

Exhibit D:
Mitt Romney, our lovely richie rich. He wants to ignore the mandate in the Constitution that requires that the Federal Government work to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States. It does not note in the Constitution that we only mean the President's rich buddies. No. That means. Everyone. As in WE THE PEOPLE.

Imagine for a moment, if you will, that it was President Obama making any of these statements. The lynch mobs would move out of the shadows and into the light. And President Obama would be lynched, if not literally (and that would be the desire of that party, I'm fairly sure, given the vitriolic rhetoric I hear) but figuratively in the media and by your candidates.

Oh, which brings me to another point. We have the title of President of the United States for a reason. Every time you call him Obama instead of President Obama, you completely disrespect the man that our country voted into the office. And it certainly wasn't close enough for a recount or a Supreme Court decision. He. Is. Our. President. Period.

You don't have to agree with the man or his politics. You don't even have to like him. But you need to respect the Office that he holds, or else admit that you are the reason that around the world our politics are ridiculed and belittled, and admit that you don't give a flying fuck if anyone respects you if you were the President.

Call him President Obama.

Assholes.