CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 04, 2022 09:52 AM UTC

Deep Thoughts By Lauren Boebert: "Evolving!"

  • by: Colorado Pols

As Huffpo’s Ed Mazza reports, the internets had a field day with this one:

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) received a free lesson in U.S. history after posting her latest tweet about the Constitution.

“The Constitution is not evolving,” she wrote on Twitter. [Pols emphasis] “To say that spits in the face of every single one of our founders.”

In reality, the framers of the Constitution not only wrote it so that it could evolve, via amendments, but began using that process almost immediately with the passage of the Bill of Rights…

The first example that comes to mind is Lauren Boebert’s favorite Second Amendment, which she has apparently been invoking her entire life without a firm grasp on what an “amendment” actually is. And then there’s what should be an even more obvious problem, though we doubt Boebert would notice the loss like losing the Second:

In short, if the Constitution had not “evolved” since its original drafting, not only would Lauren Boebert have no enshrined right to firearms but also no right to vote. Which was the nineteenth “evolution” of the document. Boebert was responding to President Joe Biden’s comments earlier this week, saying “the Constitution is always evolving slightly in terms of additional rights, or curtailing rights,” a clear reference to the debate over abortion rights–just one of many issues on which Boebert would be overjoyed to see our interpretation of the Constitution “evolve.”

While it’s considered bad form to take gratuitous shots at Boebert’s lack of education prior to being elected to Congress, sometimes Boebert’s irony-laden cluelessness becomes so overbearing that it takes over the conversation by force. Well before this point, recognizing their own ignorance, most people stop talking.

Lauren Boebert does not know how to stop talking.


52 thoughts on “Deep Thoughts By Lauren Boebert: “Evolving!”

  1. Of all the dumb shit Pew Pew has said, that has to be tops. My lord, that is just basic, BASIC knowledge of the constitution that she is lacking. Reminds me of something…

    'Mr Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.'

    1. So we get to seize all automatic weapons and give everyone a musket in exchange?  

      Everyone knows the founders meant a document drafted in the post-Jesus riding dinosaurs era 1787 was meant to apply to society unaltered in perpetuity. Duh.

      1. So we get to seize all automatic weapons and give everyone a musket in exchange?

        Of course not, Michael. At the time of framing, the term "arms" was universally understood to mean "Weapons of offence, or armour of defence." The Framers, in their infinite wisdom, knew that "Weapons of offence" would evolve beyond muzzle-loading muskets. That is why we now have a fundamental right to keep, bear, own, use and manufacture improvised explosive devices such as shrapnel-filled pressure cookers.

  2. As I keep saying, "It's all branding, and keeping her name in the public eye." It's also right up the middle of Republican Party branding.

    If it were stupidity, someone in the national Republican strategy HQ would clamp a hand on her mouth.

    Plus, Boebert doesn't give two hoots about persuading the Libtards; they (we) aren't her audience. Elections are won by name recognition and ginning up outrage that gets your supporters to the polls.

  3. Her disrespect of her constituents is as disturbing as her ignorance about the Constitution. 48.6% of them did not vote for her. Even the gunheads in her base know that the 2nd Amendment was an amendment, i.e., a change or  “evolution” to the original document. And that has happened 27 times! 

    Having lived and voted in CD3, I don’t buy that CD3 voters are ignorant or easily fooled. Hopefully, that will be evident when they vote in a primary in June. 

    1. I just wish the primary would not be a 3-way contest.  I'm concerned 40% of the Republican primary voters don't mind gibberish and showboating, aren't going to react to apparent ethical violations, and don't expect their Representative to be able to actually do something for the district. The majority of primary voters who are embarrassed by Boebert, moral, and pragmatic about getting their share of government benefits could easily split between the two other candidates, resulting in a Boebert primary win, and then the broad general election participants revert to negative partisanship, and Boebert wins by 8 or 9%.

      1. Maybe, John, but this imbecile won a two-way primary with scott tipton, a conservative with significant seniority.  We may have reached the point where a majority of CD3 voters are as crazy as Boebert.  But in the end, I don't expect Zimmerman to make the ballot.

    2. "Having lived and voted in CD3, I don’t buy that CD3 voters are ignorant or easily fooled"

      Ben "Turncoat" Campbell, Scott "Musings on Water" McInnis, Scott "Dolt" Tipton, and Q-bert.

      When "the Dolt" is the best of the batch which the CD 3 GOP has offered up over the past 30 years, I must disagree.

  4. This is silly.  The Constitution has a formal process to be changed: amendment.  It does not change on its own without an amendment.  

    For once Boebert is right.

    1. Elliot, as a lawyer, you  excel at hair-splitting. Are you claiming that Lauren Boebert makes the same fine intellectual and semantic distinctions as you- that she  was mindful that the Constitution requires a formal process to amend, instead of “evolving” independently? 😆😄🤨

      1. Difference without a distinction? Just more intended audience banter. There’s zero chance the proprietor of Schitter’s Grill (nor her moonlighting media consultant) differentiates the two. 

      1. Well, Dio, prior to 1960 homosexual acts were illegal in every state of the nation.  Now, there is a constitutional right to gay marriage.

        Uhh, what amendment to the Constitution made this change?

        What amendment legalized pornography?

        Seems like judicial interpretation might be signiificant after alll.

        1. So PewPew says the Constitution is not evolving, and you say it has (assuming you mean a broader interpretation is equivalent to evolution).  

          Who do I believe??

          I happen to be one of those who thinks the 14th amendment addresses most societal deficiencies but it’s useless if not broadly enforced. 

          1. You nailed it, Cookie.  In 1986, Bowers v Hardwicke, SCOTUS ruled there was no “right to sodomy” .  But in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas, it found consenting adults had precisely that right.

            An even vaster change came in 1954 when Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

            So, yes, Dio is wrong and the Constitution has evolved even without amendment.  Unlike Elliott, I think that’s a good thing.

            But I won’t be so happy when the court says abortion is a crime after all.

            Yeah, it’s a two-edged sword.

              1. Your exact words: “Pray tell, Elliot, who said that it did?” ( change without an amendment.)

                But don’t worry, Dio, we’ve all learned your postings are random dadaisms with little or no relationship to the facts.

        2. Actually, some states repealed the sodomy statutes legislatively when they adopted the Model Penal Code.  Much like abortion which was legalized legislatively in some states (including Colorado) before Roe v. Wade.

          1. Bowers never said states had to discriminate against gays, R&R, only that they could.  After Lawrence, such discrimination was barred everywhere.  But, clearly, that was an example of the constitution evolving without an amendment.

  5. Plenty of people.  Google living constitutionalism 

    And yes, this is what Boebert was referring to.  Complaining about this is a common topic at conservative events. 

    1. Thomas Jefferson himself presented the idea of evolving Constitutional interpretations in an 1816 letter to Samuel Kercheval (which is excerpted on Panel 4 of the Jefferson Memorial):

      But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

      Why does PewPew hate our Founding Fathers?

      These conservative events? They’re originalists? LIke “well regulated militia” originalists, or just on things they don’t like?

      1. Hey, Michael…

        That is a great quote there. The analogy of the coat is very good.

        I just lost any remaining respect I ever had for former vice-presidential mouthpiece, Marc Short. His appearance on the Chuck Todd Show was a study in mealy-mouthed equivocation, spinning, shifting, deflecting…..just an awe-inspiring display of weasel behavior. I thought,perhaps, he would side with the proponents of truth and reality…but, no, he is trying to write a history as though he were blindfolded at the time.

        Truly revolting.

        Sorry…can’t link.

    2. “Plenty of people” . . . “a common topic at conservative events.”

      Footstamping over straw-men that never existed, and don’t exist — just like critical race theory in grade schools — or, the Shariah law, of a cycle past — or, the Jewish space lasers of 2021 — why am I not surprised that this would be the every conservative-gathering conga line of 2022???

      Bobert was speaking about Biden (but, you knew that) who never said what her ginned up complaint is about (but, you also knew that), and her complaint isn’t even the “it does not change on its own without an amendment” that you’re defending her with (which she didn’t say) — (and, which you know, too).

      Damn, Elliot!  Your broken phone obviously knows better about not replying with abject blithering nonsense, than you do.

      Plenty of people GOPers who are whining ignorantly about something they invented as being said, which wasn’t said, doesn’t mean that anyone actually said it, and doesn’t mean it was said by anyone in the way they and you are now trying to portray it as being said.

      “Plenty of people” — FFS . . .

      1. I didn’t attend the St. Treachery Law School of Splitting Hairs, graduating cum laude, but I am truly enjoying the level of pretzeling he’s ascended to.  Words matter, but only when they serve the purposes of the donor class.  Those floatillas of conservatives hanging around moaning about evolution while drinking Trump wine? They’re the same assholes now spinning “overturn the election” into “what we meant was send it back to the states for review!” 

        1. The same “originalists” and their linguistic toadies who want everyone (else) to live within their limited knowledge conscriptions of the 1%er ruling class of the late 18th century (free, white, male, property owners), but who themselves have evolved to the point where multi-national corporations (that they control) have their own personal fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs, can free-speech all the money they want to use to purchase elections without any restriction or reporting, and their 18-year-old enforcers have the right to drones armed with Hellfire missiles that they can take from Illinios to Wisconsin to shoot people “in self-defense,” who need the freedom to do whatever they want, and nothing they don’t, without being made to feel badly during cocktail hour by any lessers or brown folks — You know, those aggrieved downtrodden billionaire tax-free super-luxury-yacht-owning victims, who are constantly in danger of being replaced, and having their tiny voice in government taken away. Plenty of people . . .

  6. Can’t reply on phone directly, but do you have a quote from Jefferson saying the Constitution can be amended without going through the formal amendment process?  Because that quote isn’t it.

    1. Neither the word amended or evolve is in that quote. He did establish a judicial as well as a legislative branch, no? Did he preclude the actions of the judicial branch on the evolution of the document?

    2. Radio and television weren't even a dream when the Bill of Rights was written, but no one questioned whether they ought to be protected under the First Amendment. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

51 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!