by Clifford

Alas, we’ve been over this before, dear readers. But even after a legal opinion by the State’s Attorney General determining a recall is unconstitutional, and a letter from the Secretary of State’s office saying that they will not proceed with any recall vote, the folks attempting to recall Mary Landrieu are still at it.

This is quickly going from an honest, if misguided, venting of frustration to a quixotic farce that will come back to tarnish the Tea Party movement. Without any weight of Law or legal precedent on their side, the proponent’s rationale for continuing this now appears reduced to a legal syllogism at the adolescent level: Since the Constitution doesn’t specifically forbid a recall, it must be constitutional.

 
True, the Constitution doesn’t specifically forbid a recall. But by that same logic, since the Constitution doesn’t specifically forbid an individual mandate to purchase insurance, must it therefore be constitutional? I mean, that’s basically the Left’s constitutional argument for ObamaCare.

How can we claim to be the ones defending the letter, spirit, and intent of the Constitution against the grasping-at-clauses rationale of the the Left, if we are doing the very same thing when it suits us? It makes our side look like hypocrites, or worse – like we don’t even understand the very document we claim to be defending.

I don’t know Mr. Ruben T. Leblanc, so I don’t want to judge his motives. While misguided, he seems earnestly fed up with the politics-as-usual in DC – as are we all. But this approach is a legal dead end, a potential public relations plus for our opponents (“See, the Tea Parties claim to be defending the Constitution, but don’t even understand how it works!…”), distracts us from our true objectives this year, and gives our supporters false hope in something that isn’t real.

Mr. Leblanc better have some whopping deep pockets and a lot of time if he wishes to proceed with a “legal battle Royale” over this issue. Lawyers ain’t cheap. As I’ve said before, the Tea Party Movement needs to focus on 51%-plus solutions in 2010, not 3.79% solutions.

Clifford posts regularly at Red Stick Rant.