A New Low

TEA Partier has new theory of the Constitution

by Cowgirl

Screen shot 2013-02-11 at 11.39.58 PMMost TEA Partiers claim to hold the Constitution sacred. But a Montana TEA Party legislator is now arguing that constitutionality is not relevant.  Popular sentiment, he says, is all that matters.

Rep. Gerald Bennett (R-Libby) has introduced a bill which he acknowledges is unconstitutional.  The bill would strip young women of their privacy rights and force them to seek parental consent before terminating a pregnancy.   But Bennett believes that popular will is with him, and that

“The will of the people should never be held subservient to their own constitution.”

In fact, our Constitution is exactly the opposite of what Bennett believes it to be.  The Constitution protects individual rights, and protects these rights against mob sentiment.

Bennett has also proposed a new standard for deciding whether Constitutional law should even be considered: whether or not the idea got more votes than it took to ratify Montana’s Constitution.

“While the constitution was ratified by 50.5%, LR-120 [parental notification by young women who terminate a pregnancy] was ratified by 71%. The will of the people is clear.”

Jerry Bennett, TEA Party Montana LegislatorBennett is talking about LR-120, the 2012 legislative referendum that now requires young women under the age 16 to notify their parents about an abortion.  To pass constitutional muster, the measure, which is now law, allows a young woman the option of approaching a judge instead her parents.  The US Supreme Court has long held that such an option must exist under any law that requires parental notification for an abortion.  With his new bill that he introduced last week, Bennett is trying to take LR-120 a step further, and into clearly unconstitutional territory. His bill would require anybody 18 or younger to get parental permission to have an abortion, without a judicial bypass option.  The current Montana law, from the referendum, requires only notification, not permission, and contains a judicial option.

In a memo to Bennett, attorneys for the Montana Legislature point out that his bill violates not just the US Constitution, but also Montana’s constitutional guarantees of equal protection and the right of privacy as well. But he’s got an answer for that, too.  Bennett argues that the people who wrote the Montana constitution didn’t intend women to have a right to privacy.  Rather, Montanans were just trying to prevent the government from spying on us.

You can read the memo on HB 391 and Bennett’s rebuttal here. 


10 Comments on "A New Low"

  1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 12, 2013 9:34 AM at 9:34 AM |

    The old pope is gone, long live the new pope, Pope Bennett the Dick!


    Pope Bennettdick’s first annuncio is to make himself an expert on his lady parts! You see, Pope Bennettdick don’t NEED no stinkin’ consteeTOOTIN’ constitution to explain for him his lady parts. Like the Blues Bros., Pope Bennettdick is on a mission from God! He talks directly to God! And God is never wrong!l


    What a freakin’ moron.

  2. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit | February 12, 2013 12:07 PM at 12:07 PM |

    I think there ought to be a law passed that if two people get together and make a baby, then an immediate IQ test be given to the newly conceived child and if it exhibits the same IQ tendencies that this jerkoff asshole has then the State should terminate the child and the parents for not having the brains to prevent stupidity. Whenever I go to NW Montana anymore, I drink bottled water. It is the only way to avoid ending up like the rest of the bat crap crazies that live there.

    • Obviously killing unborn is your gateway into promoting mass murder of opposing views. You’re are not the first by any means, the idea of a state controlled master race was tried and ended after world war with millions terminated. Thankfully, you will never amount to anything bigger than a keyboard potty mouth.

      • Subscribers to the religion industry like ‘Ian’ and Moore are becoming older and fewer therefore more abnormal, offensive and exclusive.

        Conservatism is unsustainable prima facie.

      • Oooh, right. When people can cavalierly say “just abortion” with the same ennui as “just war,” let’s talk. Because, you see, institutionalizing and normalizing the taking of life as somehow acceptable because it’s male-privilege custom is as nutty as saying abortion is worthy of some esteem. I’m hardly “pro-abortion,” but can we please examine the whole thing with a whole brain?

        And thanks, Larry, for the laugh!

Comments are closed.