I know she got her degree in Sports Journalism, and not Political Science, but Sarah Palin continues to display a grasp of the Constitution that absolutely perplexes me. Today's quote from her (which I saw at Andrew Sullivan's blog) just makes my head hurt.
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
The First Amendment, as well as all other Amendments, protect you from the GOVERNMENT, not from the media, not from corporations, and not from me, Seth the Blogger. In fact, the First Amendment guarantees me the right to call you, Sarah Palin, a fourth-class intellect that makes Dan Quayle look like William F. Buckley by comparison. Now I'm no great constitutional scholar, but I did pretty well in Political Science 320, aka Constitutional Law.
Personally, I gave her a pass on her "gaffe" that she said the Vice President is in charge of the U.S. Senate. While not, erm, true, you can legitimately argue that "presiding" over something rather sounds like you are in charge of it, and I don't see any reason to latch on to that as evidence of Constitutional ignorance.
However, this is a different matter. Even if she was, tragically, elected to office, how could she swear to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution when she seems to not even understand the very principles she'd be taking an oath to uphold? She seems to think that the First Amendment means you can say whatever crazy shit you want, and if (a non-governmental) someone points out that reality (which has a well-known liberal bias) differs with your batshit-crazy-conspiracy-theory-of-the-day regarding your opponent, then they are not, in fact, exercising their rights to free speech, but somehow infringing upon your own.
