Democrat Sen. Al Franken caused quite a stir yesterday when he made an utterly insane statement about the U.S. Constitution.
While questioning Judge Neil Gorsuch during his nomination hearing, the Minnesota Democrat made a jaw-dropping statement that had people wondering what country it is he actually serves. While Franken obviously wasn’t a fan of late Justice Antonin Scalia, the two men did both take the same oath before assuming their positions, but apparently Franken doesn’t think so.
Check it out, from the Free Beacon:
Franken acknowledged that nobody can dispute the late Scalia’s love for the Constitution, but he went on to say “the document he revered looks very different from the one I have sworn to defend.”
Yikes. That’s pretty out there.
Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett immediately noticed Franken’s odd statement.
So that's the problem: Al Franken: "The document" Scalia "revered looks very different from the one I have sworn to support." Can I see his?
— Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) March 20, 2017
From there, the Internet erupted in ridicule.
@RandyEBarnett Sen. Franken's is written in "evolving" ink, it seems
— Adam M. Carrington (@carringtonam) March 20, 2017
@RandyEBarnett Maybe he should have studied it before he swore to uphold it.
— Michael Kennedy (@capmotion) March 20, 2017
— Republicanvet (@Republicanvet91) March 20, 2017
@RandyEBarnett That doesn't even make BAD sense…
— The Department of No (@SantasTavern) March 20, 2017
— Sandy Williamson ن (@sandydubya) March 20, 2017
The criticisms became even worse:
— John B (@braxtj) March 21, 2017
Franken and Feinstein should be expelled from the US Senate for supporting their own Constitution.
— Joe America Radio (@JoeAmericaRadio) March 21, 2017
@michellemalkin Al Franken's understanding of the constitution is…to put it most generously…limited.
— John W. Pettit (@mmmonk53) March 21, 2017
Indeed. The Democrats seem to think that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” which has a changing meaning as society evolves, which is likely why he doesn’t see eye-to-eye with the late justice’s views on it.
With that in mind, how can one take an oath to uphold and protect a document that they don’t fully support?