Protecting and defending the Constitution doesn’t mean trying to rewrite the parts you don’t like.
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) February 19, 2021
The Hill reports on a Tweet yesterday morning, part of Rep. Lauren Boebert’s daily Twitter maelstrom in the image of Boebert’s Eternal President Donald Trump, that went viral on account of being so fundamentally clueless about the most basic constitutional principles taught in civics classes across the nation, that even by the highly relaxed factual standards of the Trump era, it’s honestly quite disturbing:
Twitter users mocked first-term Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) on Friday over a tweet in which she argued that defending the U.S. Constitution “doesn’t mean trying to rewrite the parts you don’t like.”
Users on Twitter were quick to point out to the gun rights advocate the many changes that have been ratified to the Constitution since it became the country’s official legal framework in 1788… [Pols emphasis]
Jezebel’s Ashley Reese:
On Friday, Boebert tweeted, “Protecting and defending the Constitution doesn’t mean trying to rewrite the parts you don’t like.” Okay, except, that’s literally what Constitutional amendments do.
I’m sure there are quite a few of those amendments that Boebert enjoys quite a bit, like the 19th amendment, which grants her the right to vote, or the first amendment, which allows her to say all the dumb shit she wants without the government throwing her into prison.
As Raw Story reports, Boebert doesn’t seem to understand that she herself is co-sponsoring legislation to (wait for it) amend the U.S. Constitution:
The newly elected Colorado Republican insisted the Constitution shouldn’t be revised, which, of course, Congress has done 27 times in a process laid out by the founding document — and Boebert herself has co-sponsored an amendment that would subject lawmakers to term limits. [Pols emphasis]
As Huffington Post’s David Moye reports, the judgment of the Twitters was swift and unsparing:
If you’re a politician who has promised to uphold the Constitution, it might help if you’re actually familiar with what that document includes…
Boebert’s tweet was sadly misinformed ― the Constitution was designed to change with changing times, hence the rules for adding amendments.
So after Boebert suggested that “protecting and defending the Constitution doesn’t mean trying to rewrite the parts you don’t like,” many Twitter users decided to give her the civics lesson she apparently missed in high school.
It’s a situation in which Boebert’s defenders–here’s looking at you, Dick Wadhams–might look for an alternative interpretation, maybe an acknowledgement that the point was made clumsily but “what she really meant is…” Except you can’t do that in this case. There’s just no way to make what Boebert said even remotely make sense.
I mean I for one am opposed to slavery https://t.co/Qxsf38cyX4
— Jesse Thorn (@JesseThorn) February 19, 2021
The depth of ignorance suggested by this Tweet from Rep. Boebert obviously invites the massive outpouring of social media ridicule she received in response to it yesterday. Here also once again Boebert’s critics risk in the intensity of their ridicule defensive pushback over what’s been described as “elitist prejudice” against Boebert. While it’s true that people from all walks of life have contributions to offer to the civic life of the nation, that does not spare anyone from being corrected, even lampooned, when they say something that reveals they don’t understand a subject central to their job on a fundamental level.
Who knows? Next time Boebert hears the words “Second Amendment,” the light may go on.