Today’s St. Louis Post Dispatch suggests that new lawmakers, voted into office after term-limits removed more experienced legislators, are being taken advantage of by lobbyists. The example that is given is a bill introduced by Rep. Ellen Brandom (R-160) that targets extra large marijuana cigarettes – and that was, it turns out, submitted “verbatim” as written by a “friend” who was, unbeknownst to Brandom, a lobbyist for the cigar industry, which wanted to “throw an elbow at rivals in the rolling paper business that could cut into its sales.”

This story of legislative credulity makes me wonder about  HB708,  introduced by Rep. Paul Curtman (R-105). The bill seeks to ban foreign laws from Missouri courts. Although it specifies international law systems, its focus is, admittedly, Muslim Sharia law – since you never know when those sneaky Muslims will try to take over the legal system.

According to the Turner Report, Curtman’s bill was based almost word for word on a model prepared by a well-known Islamophobe and white supremacist, David Yerushalmi. To give you an idea about how bad Yerushalmi is, Mother Jones, the source of this information, quotes him as saying that “there’s a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote.”

So is Curtman sympathetic to Yerushalmi’s views in general? Or is he just naive, poorly informed, and easily misled by by others who have taken advantage of his fantasies of heroically riding the constitution onto the legislative stage? His rhetoric on the issue certainly combines what I have come to think of as that special Curtman mixture of self-congratulation and grandiosity:

I think this is another important step in defending the rights and liberties of our citizens, … Our heritage is grounded in the idea that our government must protect those rights and liberties. This legislation will help make it clear the constitution and laws of our country are the only laws that should be considered when governing our citizens in our country.

However, he also seems more than a little befuddled, since he is unable to offer any substantive examples of creeping Sharia – which might suggest all by itself that his actions are really just motivated by run-of-the-mill xenophobia,

Certainly, those, like Curtman, who seek to thwart Sharia law by banning the intrusion of foreign legal systems don’t always seem to understand all the implications. For instance, there are corporations based in Missouri that do considerable international business. It’s reasonable to suppose that they might need to make contracts based on international arbitration standards that will be honored in Missouri.  

Nor, contrary to Rep. Curtman’s patriotic preening, are there any real constitutional issues to be settled, since, as has frequently been pointed out when the topic of Sharia law arises, the 1st amendment insures that there will be no religious encroachment on our legal system by Muslims, Hindus, or even – gasp – Christians:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It’s worth noting that this amendment also protects Muslims, Jews, Mormons and others who wish to conform to the legal dictates of their religion in their personal and communal religious lives, as long as they do not violate federal or state statutes. As critics of the Christian nation types have been saying all along, separation of church and state isn’t really about whether or not one says “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays,” but is a necessary principle that serves to protect all religions by protecting our diverse population from overreach on the part of any particular religion.

So when we weigh the evidence, what we have is a proposed law that answers no real present need, could interfere with international commerce, and which is precluded by the actual constitution. It does, however, help exacerbate the current climate of virulent Muslim bashing on the part of the right wing.

Consequently, it seems clear that although Rep. Curtman may indeed be naive, he is not at all adverse to demagoguing anti-Muslim sentiment. Nor does one necessarily have any confidence that he would repudiate the more overt racism of his bill’s original fabricator, Mr. Yerushalmi. No matter how much one is tempted to give him the same pass one might grant the over-wrought adolescent he so resembles, unlike the gullible Rep. Brandom, it’s hard to think of any way he can honestly disavow the obvious goals of HB708.

Barbara Lach-Smith, in a Kansas City Star column titled “Memo to Mo. Lawmakers: City Voters Aren’t Stupid,” summarized the attitude of Missouri lawmakers in regard to Prop B, the puppy-mill proposition, in the following terms:

Urbanites should not interfere in rural business because they do not know much about it.

It strikes me that we have been accumulating a serious body of evidence that supports a revised form of that proposition, which is that Missouri’s GOP should not interfere in government because they obviously don’t know much about it – or much of anything else for that matter.

Consider a few of today’s heaping big doses of mean and stupid:

— Firedup! reports that Tea Party darling, State Rep. Paul Curtman, has introduced a bill that would save the state from the scourge of Sharia law that is threatening it – or not. Seems Curtman isn’t really sure what it is, apart from free-roaming bigotry, that necessitates this legislative effort. (You’ll remember Curtman from events during the Tea Party Summer of 2009, where his spirited effort to defend the Constitution from Obamacare proved that he also knows little about that document.)

— Lt. Governor Peter Kinder lauded the “firm, principaled leadership” of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, declaring that “a star is born.” Of course, given the results of recent polls, Walker may amount to no more than a shooting star, but then Kinder, who apparently believes that discretion is truly the better part of valor, has been known to reverse himself when necessary.  

— The Missouri House today held hearings on a bill that would “would require the Missouri Secretary of State to verify the citizenship of all presidential and vice presidential candidates appearing on the state’s ballots.” And here I thought Birtherism was yesterday’s fad.

— The Turner Report notes that freshman Rep. Vicky Hartzler is proud of GOP achievements in the House – which, according to her, seems to have consisted of story hour, where the constitution was read out loud, followed by play time, where Hartzler had “fun cutting spending.” Doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to learn how much little Vicky enjoyed slashing the social safety net and potentially destroying 700,000 jobs while she did it? Of course, Hartzler’s enjoyment might be due to the fact that her GOP pals were careful not to cut the farm subsidies that benefit Hartzler and other wealthy farmers.

— While we’re on the topic of Hartzler, it seems that she recently declared that Planned Parenthood “does not care about young women. They’re all about profit.” I would hazard a guess that Planned Parenthood’s profits might come as a surprise to the IRS.

This is just some of what I turned up after a quick and dirty survey of local blogs and papers. I did find plenty of stuff, though, that suggests a corollary to the axiom I proposed above: Given the lax campaign finance laws in the state, the grown-up members of Missouri’s  GOP only interfere in government when their wealthy business clients pay them to do so. But that’s a topic for another day since it requires massively more space.

Image from Wikimedia Commons.  

Tenther drivel. Check.

They’re gonna take our guns away. Check.

Abortion. Check.

Let’s keep those greenhouse gases coming because global warming is disproved by the Faux News Channel‘s obsession with Al Gore’s weight. Check.

Death Panels! Check.

Illegal immigrants. Check.

Abortion, again. Check.

Teh gays. Check.

Hate crimes don’t exist because we love everyone, except the people who aren’t exactly the same as us. Check.

The majority can impose their religious beliefs on everyone else including at the point and beyond in which the majority’s religious beliefs are no longer in the majority since they were that way in the 1950s, sort of, and because those beliefs still trump and take precedence over anything else, and because they’re my personal beliefs. Check.

Siphon funding from public education – problem solved! Check.

Nothing has changed, therefore a 21st century narrow ideologue’s interpretation of what people thought in the 18th century should apply to the 21st century. Check.

Okay. Time out. This is too much. From HJR 26:

….Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government….

[emphasis added]

In the United States Constitution at the time of its ratification:

…Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons…

[emphasis added]

Oops, that compromise having to do with a peculiar institution allowed Southern States more representatives in the House with fewer voters, among other things.

Then, there’s this gem, from HJR 26:

….Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government….

Uh, over 200 years of stare decisis doesn’t leave that decision to the Missouri General Assembly, but to the United States Supreme Court:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each….

Okay, back to the entire bill:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 26

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES CURTMAN (Sponsor), HINSON, PHILLIPS, LONG, SCHATZ, HOUGHTON, LEACH, CONWAY (14), RICHARDSON, LICHTENEGGER, ENTLICHER, BRATTIN, REDMON, BROWN (85), McCAHERTY, KOENIG, WALLINGFORD, HIGDON, BERRY, CIERPIOT, SOLON, DENISON, FRANZ, WIELAND, ASBURY, BAHR, WYATT, GUERNSEY, SMITH (150), DUGGER, KORMAN, DIECKHAUS, JONES (89) AND JONES (117) (Co-sponsors).

1427L.01I                                                                                                D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, relating to state sovereignty.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

           That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

           Section 35. 1. That the state of Missouri hereby enforces its constitutional sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America over all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America, nor prohibited by it to the states.

           2. The state of Missouri shall:

           (1) Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by hereby prohibiting the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;

           (2) Not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of the following:

           (a) Federal actions restricting the right of private citizens to bear arms;

           (b) Federal actions legalizing or funding abortions, or the destruction of any embryo containing human DNA from the zygote stage onward through all stages of development;

           (c) Any federal action requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or imposing a tax, fee, fine, or penalty on the release of carbon emissions;

           (d) Federal actions involving a public option for health care, mandating end of life counseling, rationing health care, dictating or limiting the type of treatment a doctor may provide to his or her patient, authorizing or mandating the collection of a patient’s medical record into a database, covering illegal aliens under health insurance or prohibiting enforcement of laws regarding coverage for illegal aliens, mandating the benefits health insurance must cover, requiring insurance providers to cover abortion services, restricting the ability of patients to purchase health insurance in another state, or assessing fees, fines, or penalties on employers who do not provide health insurance to
their employees;

           (e) Any federal action mandating the recognition of same sex marriage, civil unions, or any relationship other than the marriage of one man and one woman;

           (f) Any federal action increasing the punishment for a crime based on the thoughts of the perpetrator or the designation of the crime as a “hate crime”;

           (g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a “wall of separation” between church and state; the dicta of, or stare decisis based on the dicta of, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); or any subsequent district, appellate, or Supreme Court holding relying on a “wall of separation” between church and state, that is applied beyond the constitutional prohibition of establishing a national religion, as intended by the signers of the Constitution and the first Congress. The acts of, and laws passed by the first Congress regarding religion, including the Northwest Ordinance, shall be dispositive on the issue as shall the acts of other founding fathers in their official capacity within the federal government;

           (h) Any federal action restricting the right of parents or guardians to home school, enroll their children in a private or parochial school, or placing restrictions on curriculum;

           (3) Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government.

           3. Missouri citizens shall have standing to bring a cause of action to enforce the provisions of this section. Enforcement of this section shall apply to federal actions taking effect after approval of this section by Missouri voters, federal actions enumerated herein, and any federal action, regardless of its effective date, the general assembly or Missouri supreme court shall hereafter determine, in accordance with subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section, to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America.

           4. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

           (a) “Constitution”, the Constitution of the United States of America;

           (b) “Federal action”, any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution;

           (c) “Public option”, any health insurance plan passed after January 1, 2009, operated by the federal government or its agent that competes directly or indirectly with private health insurance providers.

           5. The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any of the provisions of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, in compliance with subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section, to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid. Any ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction in violation of subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section shall be invalid and not recognized, enforced, or otherwise furthered in the state of Missouri.

           Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the general assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A of this resolution shall be as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit the state of Missouri from recognizing, enforcing, or furthering any federal law, executive order, judicial or administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the United States Constitution?”.

Using this document any individual can compare any legislation sponsored by anyone in any state legislature in the United States or in the United States Congress to determine if the sponsor is a right wingnut. If any portion of the rhetoric matches? Bingo!  

Remember Paul Curtman, the  young marine who has been elevated to state-wide celebrity status among the teapartiers because of of his theatrics at a constituent meeting last spring? He provided quite a show that evening when, gesturing dramatically, he declared that both he and McCaskill:

… took an oath to defend the constitution; hers took her to Washington, my oath took me overseas with a rifle.

The point he was leading up to was a dramatic demand that Claire McCaskill apologize because she did not support the same discredited, right-wing interpretation of the constitution that he ascribes to — an interpretation that challenges the right of government to legislate for the welfare of the people.  (See here and here for more background on these constitutional claims.)

Seems others in the GOP want to reap a little of the glory that adheres to the marriage of military bravado and the role of constitutional defender. According to TPM, Georgia Representative Paul Broun is going in for the same type of posturing directed at Nancy Pelosi:

When I was sworn into the Marine Corps, I was sworn to uphold the Constitution against every enemy, foreign and domestic. We’ve got a lot of domestic enemies of the Constitution and one of those sits in the speaker’s chair of the United States Congress, Nancy Pelosi.

Next best thing to telling these uppity broads to stay in their place, right?  

The Tea Party contingent struck again last Friday.  A group that the local Fox news affiliate estimated to be between 1000-2000 assembled in Frontier Park in St. Charles for the usual whinging and raging. You may take that estimate with a pinch of salt, given the tendency of teapartiers to exaggerate their numbers (see here, here, and here), but by all accounts there was definitely a fair-sized crowd. While I did not attend, I did come across several descriptions of the festivities, often accompanied by YouTube videos that I found highly suggestive.

At the Saint Charles event, the militant “don’t tread on me” placards, the martial drum-and fife music provided young men dressed in what I assume to be revolutionary army uniforms, all combined to suggest a fantasy camp for true believers, would-be heroes of the status quo who gather to fight the changes that they fear will leave them behind. The dazed-looking man who can be seen in this video rambling through the crowd, beating his little drum “for freedom” seems emblematic of some unreal and fantastical alternative world that teapartiers have collectively invented.

What strikes one most forcefully about Tea Party atmospherics here is the degree to which the participants’  rhetoric  magnifies the objects and individuals they oppose. It isn’t just health care reform these stalwarts are fighting against, but the downfall of Western civilization. The standard bearer for the other side is not just a mildly centrist Democratic president, but a Muslim terrorist, Hitler, Stalin, and the Anti-Christ rolled into one, not even the legitimate, born-in-America president, but a cuckoo planted in our nest by some inexplicable conspiracy. One can only ask, why such excess?  

To answer that question, it’s useful to look at the origins of the Tea Parties. By now it has been well-documented that the movement is the brain-child and financial beneficiary of several wealthy conservatives who have funded a maze of Astroturf organizations, and who have been aided and abetted  by numerous Republican politicians.  These relationships are discussed in detail by Michael Tomasky in “Something New on the Mall,” Oct. 22, 2009, New York Review of Books, as well as in an article by Tim Dickinson, “The Lie Machine,” Rolling Stone, Issue 1088.

Given the financial motives and murky ideological underpinnings of the funders, it is safe to say that the goal has never been to generate informed opposition, but rather to inflame the emotions of those Americans who feel the greatest sense of anomie and alienation. Ramping up this discontent and fear deflects attention from inconvenient facts about our abysmal health care delivery system, environmental threats, our economic malaise, and all the other problems we face, while creating an appearance of substantive opposition that, because of its decibel level, captures media attention.

The effect, as manifested in the Tea Party movement, are chaotic expressions of intense, paranoid emotion, totally divorced from reality.  Michael Tomasky, in the article referred to above, notes the irrational aspect of the entire Tea Party zeitgeist, observing that:

Instead of elected officials acting as a sort of restraining ego to the activists, everyone here shares one big id.

Judging by the invective spewed by the speakers at the St. Charles event, that id seems to have been on steroids last Friday.

For a case in point, consider one St. Charles speaker, Kevin Jackson, seemingly a regular on the Tea Party circuit, a blogger and author of The Big Black Lie. Mr. Jackson wasted no time getting down to the business of raising the emotional temperature.  He delighted the crowd by declaring all liberals to be racists, and boasting about his role in the ACORN stormlet, that, in his words, “exposes the left as the cockroaches they are.” Liberals, he claimed “will plant criminals in your neighborhood and ask you for money to fight crime,” and “kill babies in the womb and if they survive, then serve them up to pedophiles.” This bubba-esque rhetoric from an African-American seemed to create a palpable sense of vindication for the nearly all-white group in attendance, who are clearly uncomfortable with the imputation of racism,  if not always with the substance.

Another of the speakers last Friday, ex-marine Paul Curtman, has made quite a name for himself in Tea Party circles with mock-heroic displays of defiance and ersatz constitutional erudition. He initially attained his celebrity status earlier this year when he struck a pose and demanded that Senator Claire McCaskill apologize for failing to defend the same right-wing interpretation of the constitution that he has so uncritically swallowed. Apart from the young man’s obvious pleasure in being lionized, one gets the distinct impression that he may be using these Tea Parties to audition for a future role in Missouri politics.

After observing the robust response to this rhetoric, it is hard not to conclude that teapartiers are correct when they insist that they are sincere; but progressives are also correct that Tea Party events are classic astroturf.  The dynamic is that of applying a match to dry brush.  The brush was already dessicated, diseased and ready to burn, but somebody had to come along with a match to get the conflagration going and continue to feed it to keep it going strong. As Michael Tomasky notes in the article cited above:

This conservative protest movement, though, has three powerful forces supporting it: bottomless amounts of corporate money; an ideologically dedicated press, radio, and cable television apparatus eager to tout its existence; and elected officials who are willing to embrace it publicly and whose votes in support of the movement’s positions can be absolutely relied upon. … the left-leaning protest movements with which we’ve been familiar over the years-and that serve in our minds as the models for street protests and political rallies-have typically had none of this kind of support. For the foreseeable future, what we witnessed on September 12, and over the summer at the town-hall events, is likely to be a permanent feature of the political landscape.