Well, this is embarrassing. Like, super embarrassing.
Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, best known for refusing to comply with security in the U.S. Capitol and for lashing out at one of her gay colleagues when he questioned whether she was involved in the January 6 insurrection, has just demonstrated that she doesn’t actually know how the Constitution works, despite being an elected member of Congress.
The Second Amendment-obsessed Republican went on a tear this morning about how the founding document should never under any circumstances be revised, which, of course, Congress has done 27 times in the past, as laid out by the document itself.
“Protecting and defending the Constitution doesn’t mean trying to rewrite the parts you don’t like,” she tweeted earlier today.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Protecting and defending the Constitution doesn’t mean trying to rewrite the parts you don’t like.
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) February 19, 2021
Adding a layer of absurdity to the whole thing is the fact that Boebert, a born again Christian who never graduated from high school, recently signed on as co-sponsor to an amendment that would rewrite part of the Constitution she didn’t like by imposing term limits on lawmakers.
Folx on Twitter were quick to point this out to her…
— Morten Øverbye (@morten) February 19, 2021
So you’re against amending the Constitution? You’re absolutely clear on that?
Heard it here first, @laurenboebert is against the second amendment.
— Landes Land (@landes_land) February 19, 2021
Time to do some homework you should’ve done before you ran for office.
— Mel Persists (@MelisCattish) February 19, 2021
The constitution literally includes our right to rewrite the parts we don’t like. It isn’t holy scripture.
— Courtney’s Dad (@SteampunkKanye) February 19, 2021
How does @laurenboebert think the 2A ended up in our Constitution? I mean… pic.twitter.com/Px5Q7XFUzU
— I Just Can’t Even … (@Gotherrific) February 19, 2021
Well, it’s called an amendment. Like in the 2nd one that protects your right to be a gun nut or the 1st one that protect everyone’s right to call you so.
— Doggo (@AlGoodNameRGon) February 19, 2021
I guess comments like THIS are what you get when you send someone to Congress who didn’t even graduate from high school.
— Sally Baker McCarty 🇺🇸 (@sallybmccarty) February 19, 2021
You should learn about amendments and how they happen. Real eye opener.
— Allen Altcoin (@AllenAltcoin) February 19, 2021
Actually it does, @laurenboebert. An amendment to the Constitution gave you the right to vote.
— Empress Theodora (@Theodora500AD) February 19, 2021
I mean other than the twenty seven times they did.
— Erik the Rural Juror (@EDoggTheRed) February 19, 2021
Protecting and defending the election doesn’t mean trying to overthrow the results you don’t like. pic.twitter.com/067nQLHM6f
— Geal Faol (@GealFaol) February 19, 2021
Words and sentences create a full meaning. Context and timing are important. This type of stuff is usually taught in high school….
— Captain Observer (@gyimesi2) February 19, 2021
must have been some other Lauren Boebert sponsoring a constitutional amendment to limit congressional term limits
— Jefferton Alive! (@petestaiano) February 19, 2021
Many of the founders believed in updating — and even rewriting — the Constitution at regular intervals. Jefferson wanted it revised every nineteen years.
I’d like to think that, had they followed through with that, you’d simply be a Colorado saloon manager right now.
— Dour, Sullen, Unsmiling John Olore (@john_olore) February 19, 2021
Actually, it does. That’s why there is a process for amending it. It’s written into the Constitution. You’re responsible for protecting and defending that process as well. Awesome.
— Grandma Jones (@Frizzer) February 19, 2021
The gun-toting, god-fearing 34-year-old has not responded to the criticism, nor has she deleted the embarrassing tweet, but she did take a moment just a little while ago to mock gender identity.
Why didn’t you include products for the other 57 genders? Pretty sexist. https://t.co/hpnWWAuRhN
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) February 19, 2021
Graham Gremore is the Features Editor and a Staff Writer at Queerty. Follow him on Twitter @grahamgremore.
Fahd
How in God’s name did she get elected to Congress from Colorado? Is this a case of when good men do nothing, sh*t happens?
jsmu
Yep, AND CO is blood red Na*i fascist other than Denver and perhaps Boulder and Aspen. Colorado Springs is ground zero for theofascist bigot organizations and has been for many decades.
jw8890
A bunch of horny rednecks saw a girl with a big rack and a gun fetish.
Essie
I cannot believe there are people elected to Congress who do not have a high school diploma. This woman just got her GED and that other person (Madison Somebody) was home schooled and spent a week at junior college. Neither knows the first thing about how the government works. They continue to embarrass themselves, though Madison Whomever seems to have stepped away from the mic lately because I suppose that last CNN interview he did was a step to far even for him. Ms. Boebert really should perhaps talk to her staff (I assume they are a bit more educated than she) before twitting out nonsense that make her look like what she is . . . dumb AF.
Openminded
Essie, you’re mostly correct, but implying all home schooled people are as dumb as this female is unfair to the many well educated home schooled kids.
jsmu
@Openminded What exactly do you think HOMESKEWELS kids? NEWS FLASH, Bozo, it ain’t progressives. It’s rilijizz cultists/racists/rich white trash. Homeskewelin is guaranteed to produce results exactly like Boobert– or Kyle f*cking RIttenhouse. Essie is ENTIRELY CORRECT. Get a CLUE!
tominchicago
As a professional, degreed educator, my 30 + years of experience tell me the “well educated homeschooled” are the exception not the rule.
jcool
@openminded – i’m curious as to how you chose your screen name. you never chime in with an opinion on the article being discussed, but only to correct and criticze another commentor. maybe change your moniker to smarterthaneveryone in order to be honest
Cam
@Openminded
Isn’t it interesting then that Republicans have been screeming for months to attack democratic governors that it is psychologically damaging for kids to be learning from home and to not be back in schools.
It sounds like your own party is admitting home schooling isn’t as good.
WSnyder
Rep Boebert, perhaps you should be focusing on the upcoming FEC investigation into your Nov. 2020 Campaign expenditure where you were reimbursed some $20k for Mileage, which translates to over 34,000 driven miles, during your Congressional run. That’s about 1 and 1/2 trips around the planet. Isn’t it ALSO a coincident that your Bar paid off a number [8] of State tax liens for nonpayment of unemployment insurance premiums dating back to 2016, totaling around $19,500+ around the same time? And this payment[s] was after your numerous complaints about how the Pandemic was ‘killing your business’ due to state lockdowns and necessary COVID restrictions and this money just suddenly came out of nowhere to pay off the liens?
Yeah, you best focus on that and how you’re gonna deal with explaining all that, if you can.
WSnyder
There’s certainly a concern about the Education and intelligence of people running for office. While any argument that there be a minimum threshold of education makes some points, it would necessitate a Amendment to the Constitution for qualifications to run for Federal Office. Not likely going to happen.
What about having a voluntary Test? Say a group of Bipartisan experts in Government and Education create a Exam that anyone running for office can voluntarily take and the only condition is that this group offering the test releases the results publicly. So while any candidate can choose NOT to take the test, the question could be, why wouldn’t they? Two or more people running for say, a Congressional seat, could use the results [or lack thereof] as evidence for their quantifications over their opposition. Of course if one scores vastly higher than the other(s), it’s bragging rights while the lower scoring candidates would need to make the argument as to why they might still be a better candidate. A lower test score could be offset by a candidate who brings more to the table with experience, personality, likeability, and other factors that would demonstrate that the ‘test’ is not the end all of who should win. Such a test would however, reveal people like Boebert who should never be elected because of the basic lack of understanding how the Government works.
jcool
PERSON< WOMAN< MAN<CAMERA<TV
Den
People like her get elected because Republican voters typically confuse stupidity with “being a maverick” and ignorance with wisdom.
They love to make uninformed pronouncements and love it when others do as well.
It is clear that she has neither read the constitution, nor has the education to understand it and its history.
Well worth going to Twitter to read the equally ignorant tweets from those who support her.
MaxTaste
Oh my word.
Prax07
Morons like her should never be allowed to run for office. There needs to be testing in place that these people like her need to pass Before being allowed to even think about running. Mental fitness tests should also be a requirement. Most Republicans in office now probably wouldn’t have been allowed to run if there were.
Openminded
To keep our country “free” and run “by the people”, it requires that very few restrictions be put on candidates, and for the same reason, voters. I agree though, there is a strong argument to be made that both candidates and voters should have to pass some form of literacy tests before being allowed to participate in the political system. Of course, if that were law, it would be twisted back to the time when blacks and women were not allowed to vote by some unscrupulous politicians. Likely the LGBT community would be banned from participating also.
I believe the real answer is to demand that media provide only the unbiased truth along with somehow managing to require the same from social media posts. With so many ill informed + corrupted people willing to lie on social media, it is hard to completely support the 1st Amendment.
jsmu
@Openminded You’re even more delusionally stupid and naive than your remarks about HOMESKEWELIN indicate! Our police state is neither FREE NOR run ‘by the people.’ If you were not such a cretin you’d know what supports Boobert: the effing CLUB FOR GROWTH, a fascist sociopath billionaire organization which specializes in N*zis.
Den
God! You are dull as a bag of hammers!
To keep our country “free” and PROPERLY run we need politicians with appropriate skills and the intellect to understand and evaluate complex modern issues.
Clearly this woman does not fit that bill at all.
Just as Trump did not, and now we are in a situation where we have to rebuild the trust the free world had in us, and re-strengthen treaties and agreements he spit on.
This woman does not (as Trump did not) understand the structure and function of our government or what our constitution actually says. That is a recipe for disaster, Plus she (like Trump) seems to have no ethical base.
Den
“I believe the real answer is to demand that media provide only the unbiased truth”
Print media of record does exactly that (the Times, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, Forbes, the Christian Science Monitor and so on). When you have a room full of awards and a reputation that spans generations you protect it. Broadcast media of record and on line media does as well, and the progressive media makes it quite clear when they transition from reportage to opinion and analysis. All of those are laughingly called “fake news” by the right.
Partisan right wing media be it print or video or on-line does no such thing, as exemplified by FOX, NewsMax and OAN, as well as the Washington Times, and similar right wing rags. They hurl unfounded accusations, create narratives based on hearsay and are concerned more with advancing a manipulative agenda than being truthful.
Kangol2
@Openminded, you mentioned a time when “blacks and women were not allowed to vote by some unscrupulous politicians.” Actually, in nearly the entire United States, with a few exceptions (in some northern states before the US became a country, and in state and local elections in certain states and local areas afterwards, until 1865) Black people and women were barred from voting not just by “unscrupulous politicians” but by judges, cities and states, community leaders and average White Americans, violent organizations, and more. It took a US Civil War and two Constitutional amendments to permit even a baseline for widespread Black voting, US federal troops to ensure Black Americans could vote after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, and then, after decades of massacres, lynchings, poll taxes, numerous other schemes to prevent Black people from voting (which continue through today), etc., it took decades of protests, even more federal and state legislative action, including several federal Civil Rights bills, more court cases, etc., before a majority of Black Americans could vote. As you also probably know, it took a Constitutional Amendment to allow women to vote; it was enacted, passed, and became law only 101 years ago, less than half the age of the United States.
Openminded
Damn people, please read and comprehend my whole post before you fire off after reading the first sentence. In no way am I saying this woman is smart enough to be in office. I’m just pointing out the fact that when you start eliminating people from eligibility for any reason, even what sounds like a good one, you risk eliminating good people. The black community has seen this forever. There are many black people who are the best candidate to fill a job but once a racist HR officer sees the color of their skin they suddenly become “no the right person to fill the job”. Gay people suffer the same plight. It ain’t right but it is happening. There was a time Obama would not have been able to run much less be elected POTUS. If barriers are put up, they will be used against good people to prevent them from running for office. If good people get good information from the media, then our only hope is that good people vote for good candidates. I can only hope that this woman got elected by misinformed people. If this country has become filled with enough idiot voters to continue to elect this type person as a leader, we’re all F’cked.
BoomerMyles
It’s baffling there’s no educational requirements to become a member of Congress yet the Citizenship tests for foreigners to become citizens is so onerous I think only 10% of natural born citizens could pass them.
Kangol2
Part of the challenge when the US was founded and the US Constitution, which establishes the requirements for federal elected office, was written, was to ensure as wide a pool of (White male) candidates as possible, given the then comparatively sparse eligible populations in many of the states. You can push for your Congressperson to introduce a Constitutional amendment to change the requirements, but I’d bet you that it would go nowhere.
The US now has 332 million people, and enough in every state to ensure enough Congressional representation (though we could use more Congresspeople, to tell the truth, and the Senate’s composition should be rethought to, since the residents of populous states like California, Texas, Florida, and New York get cheated in comparison to far more sparsely states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Rhode Island.) Even still, there are powerful interests that want the Lauren Boeberts and Marjorie Taylor Greenes in the House, and, if possible, the US Senate. Look at Alabama’s new Senator, Tommy Tuberville, who does have a college degree, but didn’t even know the correct branches of the Federal government, among other basic bits of needed knowledge to effectively legislate on behalf of his state and the US.
cuteguy
Who needs an education anymore? When this country elected a mOron reality show prez with absolutely NO experience, this is the result. At this point, Kim K is more electable than anybody going to Yale or Harvard
Kangol2
True but let’s not ever forget, George Walker Bush, the worst, most inept president before Don the Con, is a graduate of Yale and Harvard!
Two of our best presidents, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, went to no college at all, and a third, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was a middling student at Harvard, which he did graduate from, and attended but did not graduate from Columbia University Law School.
jsmu
BOOBert is one of the Club for Growth’s little darlings. Look them up. Pure sociopathic billionaire Reichwing fascism.
ShiningSex
who is surprised that a republican nut doesn’t know facts.
wikidBSTN
Someone needs to go to her district – and slap every voter in it.
john.k
I liked the reply, I can remember who by, which pointed out that but for the 19th Amendment she wouldn’t have had the right to vote.
wjhboy73
How are these idiots even allowed to run for public office?