The GOP House Speaker, John Boehner says the shutdown crisis “isn’t some damn game,” but there’s no doubt that the Republicans in Congress are indeed playing a game, and a very dangerous game it is. And what’s worse, Republican leaders are aware that what they are doing is suicidal as far as their party is concerned and homicidal as far as the nation goes. It’s happening because of a few yeast-brained fools who think that they’re making a grand stand for principles that even they are hard put to describe in meaningful terms. E. J. Dionne puts it perfectly; it’s “the Seinfeld Shutdown: It’s about absolutely nothing, at least where substance is concerned.”

How, you may be forgiven for asking, can responsible legislators lead the country into disaster to satisfy continually shifting and politically undigestable demands? The answer: consider the people doing the demanding. And you don’t have to go far to do it since we have here in Missouri more than a few legislators that suffer from the same delusions as the would-be leaders of the attempted GOP coup d’état in Washington D.C.

Let’s start with state Senator Ed Emery (R-31), who exemplifies the constitutional fetish common to so many GOP legislators who were agitating for the shutdown. To give you an idea about how bad it is, Emery holds that the vetoed gun bill, HB436, widely deemed by legal experts to have egregiously violated the Constitution, was “the most constitutional bill this year, not just in Missouri’s Legislature, but in any state.” Not surprisingly, he also insists that despite the contrary opinion of the Supreme Court, Obamacare is not only unconstitutional, but constitutes an overweening threat to God and Country:

One need know little about the origins and history of America and the origins and history of Obamacare to know that this fight is not about the survival of Obamacare or of a political party, it is about the survival of the Republic. …

I’m willing to bet that this poor schmuck, like plenty of the D.C. Tea Party contingent, really believes this sort of tripe. It’s based on an attitude that views the Constitution as a magical, quasi-religious icon that codifies the deepest wishes of ignorantly genuflecting true believers, rather than a mental construct that has to be intellectually apprehended. How else could Senator Emery ignore the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare? Garrett Epps  points out some of the most common rightwing Constitutional errors and identifies some purely non-existent passages and words that are commonly bandied about by these folks, all of  which allow them, in Epps words, to wave the Constitution “about like great-grandpa’s Confederate cavalry sword to demonstrate that we can’t have health care, or environmental protection, or whatever other policy they oppose today.”  

Not surprisingly, you get a heaping serving of the stupid when you leaven this faux-constitutional fervor with the simplistic economic cliches current on the right – beautifully exemplified by state Rep. Mike Kelley (R-126), who baldly states that “the federal government is shutdown today and the last few days because it’s out of money!” That, of course, is untrue in general terms, and untrue when it comes to the claim that we cannot afford Obamacare; in fact, repealing Obamacare would actually increase the deficit.

So what we’re confronted with are a gang of none-too-bright legislators with a poor grasp of economics, tons of inbred prejudices, and heroic yearnings focused on a poorly digested understanding of the Constitution. In short, ripe for plucking.

And plucked they have been, as the the New York Times made clear in a recent article on the evolution of the shutdown which traces its roots to months of planning on the part of rightwing groups such as Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Action for America and others, all generously funded by titans of industry like the Koch brothers, and happily steering the equally dim-witted federal analogues of Emery and Kelley into our current disaster. The goal? To destroy any legislation that would slow progress towards a United States of America that more closely resembles those third-world, free-market paradises where many of these “job-creators” have already gone to do their low-cost creating.  

Today we celebrate the document that embodies the American spirit and ideals.

Today we celebrate the document that embodies the American spirit and  ideals.

In May of 1787, when the delegates to the Federal Convention convened to overhaul the Articles of Confederation, debate over the issues the new nation faced brought the delegates to the conclusion that the original governing document should be set aside, and an entirely new frame of government established. 

The end result was the Constitution of the United States; the Social Contract that to this very day governs our lives and defines the boundaries of our relationship with our government. 

Competing visions of government were considered and debated, and a draft emerged on August 6^th.  Two weeks later, commerce and slavery collided, and nearly ceased the proceedings.  A week into September, the delegates were exhausted and ready to return home, and the final draft was turned over to committee for the preparation of the final draft, which was returned finished on September 12.  On September 15, it was voted on by the convention for the last time, and it passed unanimously.  Every vote on the roll call was “aye.”

From there, it went to the states, where now the fight was between the Federalists who backed ratification and the anti-Federalists who opposed. 

Pennsylvania was the first state to call for a ratification convention.  All eyes in the nation were cast toward that state.  Pennsylvania was large, wealthy and powerful, and there was much at stake.  The positions of both Federalists and anti-Federalists were printed in newspapers throughout the land. 

Passions were high.

When the Federalist-dominated state ratifying convention lacked a quorum of members to conduct the vote on September 29, an angry mob took Participatory Democracy to a whole new level. 

They went to the homes of two anti-Federalist lawmakers and dragged them to the statehouse, forcing their presence, and a quorum. 

Anti-Federalist sentiments ran equally high, however, and in New York, a series of essays penned under the pseudonym “Cato” began appearing, assailing the Constitution for the strong central government it established. 

A counter offensive was undertaken by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, with the help of James Madison.  Before the end of 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers would be published.  The 85 essays, most penned by Hamilton, examined the failings of the Articles of Confederation, and building the case for a strong central government.  Thomas Jefferson later called the Federalist Papers the “best commentary on the principles of government ever written.”

  < 

The fight was not over.  By January 1788, only five of the nine states needed for ratification had voted to do so – Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Georgia and New Jersey.  The ratifying convention in Massachusetts did not ratify until the addition of a Bill of Rights. 

That made six.

But the Federalists were not on the homestretch yet.  The New  Hampshire convention would be adjourned before the vote by Federalists sensing defeat.  Rhode Island put it to the citizens in the form of a referendum, and the citizens turned down the Constitution with an overwhelming 10-to-1 rejection. 

The Federalist leaders were getting nervous.  They turned their focus to Maryland, and Madison wrote to George Washington “The difference between even a postponement and adoption in Maryland may . . . possibly give a fatal advantage to that which opposes the constitution.”  Madison expended much anxiety needlessly.  The Maryland convention overwhelmingly approved the Constitution, with 63 delegates voting “aye” and only 11 “nays.” 

That made seven.

In May, South Carolina adopted the Constitution, so when New Hampshire ratified in the summer of 1788, the Constitution became the Social Contract.  With the ratification of the Constitution by a reconvened New Hampshire convention, the Congress appointed a committee “for putting the said Constitution into operation.”

By September, Virginia and New York would ratify as well, but the votes were very close. 

Heroes of the Revolution, Patrick Henry foremost, had opposed the new Constitution because it was vague, and it was only adopted when the amendments we know as The Bill of Rights were added. 

It was an age of debate and participation and compromise.  In the end, the founders gave us a Republic.  It is our charge to keep it.