The problem with both conservatives and liberals when it comes to the Constitution is that they are often like Christians in that, like Christians with the Bible, they tend to read into it what they want, ignore the parts they disagree with, and in fact probably have never read it in the first place.
These “Constitutional Fundamentalists” are also very similar to religious ones in that when they do interpret the document, they always find that the unchanging and clear words in the document mean exactly what they already believed anyway.
You never see one of these people go “The Constitution is clear and unambigous and cannot be interpreted! We have to read it exactly as the founders intended! Unfortunately for me, it’s obvious that they intended something I disagree with.”
No, it’s always “We must obey the will of the founders who clearly wanted everyone to have an assault rifle without any restrictions whatsoever!”
If you’re a regular follower of this blog, you’re certain to have seen some of Darrin Bell’s political cartoons. They cut to the chase and often make a serious point without any attempt to be funny like many cartoonists. They’re hard-hitting journalism in cartoon form.
I’ve been a fan of his work for years, ever since I discovered his comic strip “Candorville.” I ended up writing the afterword for one of his collections, and interviewed him on my writing blog.
He agreed to do the artwork for my upcoming book HOW TO ARGUE THE CONSTITUTION WITH A CONSERVATIVE, due from Gray Rabbit Publications in August.
Here’s the cover illustration:
Anyway, I was amazed and please to discover this week that he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning, which is well deserved.
So congratulations to my friend — and the first person I’ve ever known personally that won a freakin’ Pulitzer!
(Also: If you have a political blog, radio show, TV show, or other media outlet and you’d like to do an advance review of the new book, please contact me!)
(If anyone knows the cartoonist, tell me so I can give proper credit)
“But Attorney General Barr has released a summary of the report and it says Trump is innocent.”
Well, no, it doesn’t. It says he will not be indicted, which is something Mueller said years ago — that he believes you cannot indict a sitting president. (I clearly disagree with that. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to support that idea.)
Barr said that the report does not show “collusion.” Now, keep in mind that, as many conservative scream, there is no law against “collusion.” It’s called “conspiracy.” Saying someone is innocent of “collusion” is like saying someone is innocent of “beating someone up” since the actual law is called “assault.”
But here’s the real thing to keep in mind until the actual report is released:
Barr spent the last year calling the Mueller investigation a witch hunt. He is fiercely loyal to Trump, who was appointed because he was fiercely loyal in order to replace a previous Attorney General who tried to remain neutral and not say anything about an on-going investigation (you know, like lawyers are supposed to do).
A person who clearly sees their job as being a partisan supporter of Trump may indeed not be presenting us with an unbiased summary of the report.
So don’t buy into the Republican spin on this, where they try to diminish the report that has already led to Trump’s closest advisers either indicted or already in jail, including his campaign chairman, campaign aide, campaign adviser, chief of staff, national security adviser, and personal lawyer — not to mention dozens others here and in Russia.
That is hardly the “nothing burger” they are claiming.