At some point, we could use a calm, prolonged, honest discussion about how our–as a reaction to the Great Depression–we grew the powers of the federal government beyond the way they were originally described in the constitution.

We really need to face the facts that we did this, that the expanded federal government includes some beloved programs (medicare and social security), and that we either have to amend our constitution to make such an expansion “clearly constitutional” or shrink the government back (and lose those programs).

It’s a hard choice. It’s a complex issue. It’s underlying most of our domestic policy squabbles today.

The tea party folks really believe that they have a better knowledge of the constitution than you or I, or that they have a better read on it than the many judges who have rendered decisions supporting the expanded federal government.

I know that they, at times, sound unhinged, racist, sexist, homophobic, and violent. However, unfortunately, they have a point.

We went and did something with our federal government that doesn’t fit with the constitution. It may not have technically been rendered “unconstitutional,” but the tea party folks have a point.

…and while we’re at it, we should decide how constitution it is to have “the fed” be so powerful and so “out from under federal control” as it is.

I don’t think you have to be a tea party member or that you have to advocate literacy/civics tests to know that there is an incredible amount of ignorance of basic civics with the American voters. My main complaint about such ignorance is that it can be exploited by PR, marketing, talking points, and spin.

We saw it in the Scott Brown win. We’re not talking about misunderstanding the most challenging parts of the constitution, law, or current office holders. We’re talking about people who got seriously proposed that electing a federal senator could reign in the spending of a state governor (wrong). We’re talking about another person who thought that electing a federal senator could help to balance out a Democratic-party-dominated-and-entrenched state legislature (wrong legislative body!).

Again, I don’t favor testing. But citizens’ ignorance is making it easier to manipulate them into a highly emotional, poorly-thought out, knee jerk vote. And Rachel, IMO, is very disingenuous to cry “Racism!” (I’d call it “racially insensitive”) and ignore the valid point that they are trying to address.

They have a valid point about civic ignorance. They came up with an invalid proposal steeped in historic racism. Bad suggestion. But a *very* *real* problem.