More Tea Baggery

RedState's Pompadour has Part II of his Ron Johnson/Rock River Patriots grilling analysis up. If you'd like some more nuttery, help yourself. A third helping is promised for Monday.

I think it's important to point out that Pompadour and the rest of his band of merry men at RS are pretty obviously David Westlake supporters and that this fact clouds any method to their madness.

Still, one has to wonder what universe Pompadour is living in. Take for example the utterly preposterous idea that the Fourth Amendment somehow shields citizens from income taxes. Here's the relevant part of the post:

Do you think the 4^th Amendment provides some challenges to the income tax system?

Johnson had to be nudged by someone in the audience as to the basic content of the 4^th Amendment before he could come up with an answer. His excuse? (you’ll hear it peppering the entire 45-minute session) “I’m not a constitutional scholar.” No one was asking him to be. But it seems reasonable that he should know the content of the document he’ll be sworn to uphold if elected.

Once reminded, Johnson gets quite excited about personal property rights and how wonderful they are—though he never quite ties his thoughts back to the question he was asked. He also says, “Freedom is really economic freedom—to a great extent.”

Well, there’s an interesting quandary… How, exactly, does RoJo’s exuberant embrace of personal property rights and economic freedom square with his previous assertion that government should have the power to limit business? Or doesn’t he view a business—or any of the various forms of ownership in one—as personal property and economic freedom? Perhaps he ought to think these connections through to a logical conclusion as others of us have done.

Now, I have to sympathize with Johnson's answer. When I first read the question the very first thought in my head was "Wait, isn't the Fourth Amendment the one about unreasonable searches and seizures?" I was so unsure with myself that I went and looked it up before I continued reading.

Turns out I was right, but the reason I doubted myself was because the Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with income taxes! Pompadour's argument is so ridiculous it isn't even a fringe argument. It's just patently wrong.

I bring this up because Pompadour is a bit of a dick when it comes to talking about how awesome his interpretation of the Constitution is. He claims that Johnson "lacks a solid familiarity with the Constitution" and chides him for saying that the document is "not an easy document to read. Unless you study it in detail, it’s hard to study." Also, see the last line of the first paragraph above.

But Pompadour's treatment of the Fourth Amendment as a guarantee against income taxes is a perfect example of someone who is cherry-picking from the Constitution. Federal income taxes are specifically allowed courtesy of the 16th Amendment. No wonder Johnson was tripped up by the question: it made no sense whatsoever.

And this is all emblematic of the ultimate problem with the Tea Party: you just can't win with these guys. They hate taxes so much that they develop an alternate reality in which vast swathes of the government are unconstitutional despite clear evidence to the contrary. It's not enough for Johnson -- or anyone, really -- to say "I want to significantly reduce taxes." Tea baggers demand that their candidates subscribe to the same crank legal theories that they do.

This is no way to get elected.