Remember when Hatch, Rohrabacher & the Rs wanted to AMEND OUR CONSTITUTION to make Ahnuld president?

[TacticalPeek]

. . . Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a political ally of Schwarzenegger, introduced the Equal Right to Govern Amendment in July 2003, a few weeks before the actor declared his candidacy in the recall election in which Californians ousted Democrat Gray Davis as governor.
. . .
Rohrabacher has introduced a House resolution that mirrors Hatch's proposal in the Senate.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-12-02-schwarzenegger-amendment_x.htm

But then the birthers came after Orrin Hatch so he tried to disappear his foreigner-loving "Equal Right to Govern Amendment".

Hatch hasn't talked about his proposed amendment much recently, and he appears to be in the process of trying to perform a 1984 "Ministry of Truth" expunging of this particular aspect in his career.

Apparently until a couple of days ago, the details of Hatch's proposed amendment were still available in the direct archives of his Web site, listed along with his other legislative efforts over the years. But there's a gap in that list of pages now, seemingly where mention of the amendment used to be present.

Right now as I type this, if you search on Google for this topic, you'll can still immediately and easily find the relevant reference to the amendment at Hatch's site -- and here is my copy of those search results.

But what happens today when you follow the associated link back to the Hatch site itself?

Wham! Bam! The link's flushed down the Can!

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000846.html


Republicans are no friend of the Constitution.

[KansDem]

1. Yeah, I remember that!

The Republicans were giddy with the prospect of having another actor turned governor turned POTUS.

"The First Family...and Then Some."

[slackmaster]

2. The idea came from the 1993 movie Demolition Man

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/

[Travelman]

3. I must be missing something...

How does wanting to amend the Constitution through the correct and legal process laid out in that document somehow make someone "unfriendly" to the Constitution? I think this idea of Orrin's was dumb as hell, but we do have a Constitutional Amendment process for a reason. We've done this seventeen times. Was each of those occurrances "unfriendly" to the Constitution? I certainly hope not. I'm rather fond of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment. I'd hate to think that it was "unfriendly" to abolish slavery.

[TacticalPeek]

4. I guess it depends on how you see it.

To me it appears as a transparent attempt to rejigger the rules in order to favor an individual that the Rs thought would benefit them against the Ds.

I didn't say that amending the Constitution is unfriendly, as I'm sure most readers can discern. I say that amending it in a short-sighted, ad hoc fashion for mere political gain is wrong. There's a difference.

[Raine1967]

5. +1 eom

[Travelman]

6. Fair enough.

The good news is that it's quite difficult to actually amend the Constitution at all, which helps to prevent Amendments just for political gain.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. How can we forget?

[Keith Bee]

8. Hey, he was just trying to keep up with the Kennedy men!

:sarcasm:

[Mz Pip]

9. Arnold was a big disappointment

to conservative Republicans - he's pro choice, pro gay. That's just not tolerable with that crowd.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. I've always been in favor of such an amendment

And I still am.

It's not about Arnold. It's about equality. All citizens should be equal.

I wouldn't mind the opportunity to vote for Jennifer Granholm for president.