You'll Never Know, Dear, How Much We Love You

We all, in the U.S., love our Constitution, don't we? Right, left or center, you will seldom hear anyone say of it, "Silly bit of fishwrap! We should scrap that anachronistic document." We speak of it with reverence. Most of us believe that, despite having been written over 200 years ago, it should remain the foundation of our laws and government.

Oh, sure, some of us think it could do with a few tweaks. Many of us women feel we should be in it! You know, specifically and unambiguously. Then there's the fact that some of us get treated like it doesn't apply to us, even though the 14th amendment says

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's pretty clear, right? No state shall . . . any person within its jurisdiction? So if a state makes available a contractual arrangement between consenting individuals - let's call it marriage - which provides access to a wide array of benefits, that state must make that contractual arrangement available to all consenting individuals who are otherwise qualified to enter into legal contracts - you would think.

Or if - purely hypothetically - any state passed a law which, despite covering language, required law enforcement to single out some kinds of people for different treatment than others, based on nothing more than what they look like - or maybe what their shoes look like - well, the 14th amendment really ought to be all over that one.

But despite our seemingly unanimous love and respect for our Constitution, some of us do have more of a soft spot for some of its provisions than for others. Take this bit:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the 2nd amendment, and for some people it is their very, very favoritest part. No, seriously. The entire structure of our government is in our Constitution, as well as the guarantees of our most basic freedoms, but for some folks that one sentence about a "well-regulated militia" seems to be the locus of all their Constitutional hopes, dreams and fears.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-mageddon) is one such. Following the shooting at Ft. Hood last year, a new policy was instituted there which requires anyone bringing personal weapons on base to register them, and those living on base to notify their commanding officers of personal weapons in their possession and to keep their weapons in a unit arms room.

The Dept. of Defense (DOD) Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, led by a retired admiral and a former Secretary of the Army, determined that the DOD's policy regarding personal weapons on military bases was "inadequate". The Pentagon is now formulating a stronger policy for all military bases.

But what is the expertise of the Pentagon regarding either weapons or defense of the Constitution, in comparison to that of Sen. Inhofe? Also inadequate, apparently. Because Sen. Inhofe claims that the recommendations of the Pentagon investigators won't prevent future attacks, and that requiring anyone - even those carrying weapons onto a U.S. military base - to register those weapons, is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

How ya gonna keep your militia well-regulated if they can't even take their personal weapons onto military bases without the military sticking their snoopy noses into that?

So the Constitution-loving Senator has introduced S.3388, the Service Member Second Amendment Protection Act of 2010, to preclude the Pentagon from such "gun ownership over-regulation", saying

Political correctness and violating Constitutional rights dishonors those who lost their lives and is an extreme disservice to those who continue to serve their country.

And we may be sure that this legislation avoids such errors because "Inhofe worked closely with the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the development of the legislation" according to a press release from his office.

Nobody hates political correctness or loves the U.S. Constitution more than the NRA. Not even the federal courts of the United States, which have ruled both that the 2nd amendment "poses no barrier to (gun) registration" and that the military, being a unique society within the larger society, may place some restrictions on its members' rights under certain circumstances.

So Sen. Inhofe's great love of the Constitution may not prevail, even if his bill were to be passed. But he'll have the satisfaction of knowing that he's made the NRA happy. I hear they're very generous with people who make them happy.

Oh, and don't confuse the "extreme disservice to those who continue to serve their country" which is imposed by regulating the terms of their possession and use of personal firearms with the minor inconvenience to gay service members caused by DADT. Because the 2nd amendment does not wanna be in a foxhole with your kind.

Then there's this one:

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.

That's the 1st amendment, and I would have thought it was many, if not most, people's favorite. It sure does get talked up a lot. You can't even disagree with some folks' blog comments without their suffering a fit of righteous indignation about how that's a severe violation of their 1st amendment right to talk shit all over your blog. (This is not an interpretation of the 1st amendment which has ever been upheld in a court of law.)

But one does get the impression that, in general, the people of the U.S. hold this amendment very dear. And it is widely believed that this prohibition against the Congress "making any law respecting an establishment of religion", along with the protections of the 14th amendment, prohibit any governmental body within the United States from encouraging or inhibiting the practice of any particular religion.

Which raises the question of how to account for the fact that Muslim Americans in several locations seem to be having a good deal of trouble getting city councils and commissions to approve their plans to build or expand existing mosques. An attorney for the Islamic Center in Alpharetta, GA seems to feel that the City Council there is showing insufficient appreciation for the Constitution, and says he'll recommend that his clients file a lawsuit, as "the city previously had approved a number of other churches of similar size."

About 150 concerned citizens attended the Council meeting at which this matter was discussed and voted on, showing curiously little love for the Constitution, or for their Muslim neighbors. Although, to be fair, one man said, "“This is not about religion. … It’s about contractural (sic) agreements.” Fulton County had imposed restrictions on the mosque regarding any future expansion when it approved a previous addition. The Islamic Center did not enter into any contractual agreement with the county, but they raised no objection to those restrictions at the time. So I guess this isn't really a Constitutional matter, because it's "not about religion."

And in Brentwood, TN, it's not about religion, either. It's about terrorists! And about how anyone who is Muslim might be one! A group of Brentwood residents who had applied to rezone 14 acres to allow them to build a mosque have withdrawn their application, after an organized plan to prevent it continued strong despite their having agreed to limit the size of the mosque, not use outside loudspeakers to announce the call to prayer, and limit outside lights.

One of the organizers of the opposition, Matt Bonner, who lives in Nashville, not Brentwood, but evidently considers it his business which houses of worship are erected in Brentwood because he is a member of the Brentwood United Methodist Church, says, "The fact is that the mosques are more than just a church. No one can predict what this one will be used for." Unlike Brentwood United Methodist Church, I guess, where all activity into the distant future can be known, and all of it will be pure, and good, and Constitution-loving.

The difference lies in the fact that Islam is "not really a religion", according to the person whose writings have shaped Mr. Bonner's understanding of it. Instead, "Islam is a dangerous political ideology" according to one Bill French, who for some reason writes under the name of Bill Warner. Mr. French/Warner runs a publishing house in Nashville which for some reason is called the Center for the Study of Political Islam, despite the fact that it does not appear to be a Center for Study, but a Center for Selling Books by Mr. French/Warner.

So don't let any of this lead you to suspect that the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution is held in any lesser reverence than its frequent invocation in blogular disagreements would suggest. The people of Brentwood, determined though they are to keep out mosques, love that amendment so much that they are truly hurt when some attorney takes its name in vain. Like, say, when he mentions to mosque opponents at a meeting "that federal and state law gives religious institutions special protections when it comes to zoning."

Says Mr. Bonner: "What kind of neighbor is that who comes in threatening lawsuits?"

We here in the U.S. do love and respect our constitution. But we hate terrorists, especially if they are sneakily attempting to pass off a political ideology as their religion. And we really hate folks being unneighborly.