In an article that appeared in The Washington Post, Michael Waldman, a former speechwriter for President Clinton, points out that while members of the Tea Party and other right wingers like Michele Bachman say they are committed to upholding the Constitution, they in fact favor changing the Constitution in countless ways. Here are some Waldman has collected:
Change the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the rights of citizenship, such as equal protection of the law and due process, to anyone born in the US. Now Senators John Kyl and Lindsey Graham have suggested rewriting this provision to exclude children who were born in the US if their parents crossed the U.S. border illegally.
Repeal the 16th Amendment, which authorized the income tax. This one is an idea from Glenn Beck.
Overturn the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct public election of US Senators. This was a key political reform of the Progressive Era, and a major step forward for democracy. Tea Partyers say this will give more power to state legislatures. Why they want to do that–instead of trusting the people–is a mystery.
Institute the so-called Repeal Amendment, which would give two-thirds of the states the power to nullify federal laws. History has shown that it’s a poor idea to allow state or regional interests to trump national interests. Moreover, this would allow a coalition of states populated by about a third of the population to nullify laws favored by the big states where the larger part of the population resides. As Waldman says, “This amendment, if passed, would mark the dismantling of the strong national government that has helped make the U.S. the most powerful nation in world history. It would turn back the clock not to before the New Deal, but to before the Civil War.”
Overall, says Waldman, “these constitutional forays would repeal some of the greatest advances in democracy.” In their attempt to fight big government, they are in fact undermining democratic reforms.
FYI – It is better to think of the 16th Amendment as removing a check on spending (the apportionment check). The ability to collect an income tax was never really in question, but how the money it brought in was to be spent was an issue.