Tone-Deaf As Ever

James Taranto has the goods on Michael Dukakis in yesterday's Best of the Web. In which the ever-sensitive Mr. D explains why the Democrats don't have the presidency in the bag:

...some crazy guy will blow up a building with three weeks to go, you know, and then we'll be back in Bush-land again.

Way to learn nothing from your mistakes, fella.

That's actually not why I call your attention to the column, however. I'm more interested in the discussion of Romney's support of a Human Life Amendment. Reading WaPo's coverage of Romney's position on Roe, Taranto wonders if the Post understands the Constitution:

Whatever Romney's opinion of a constitutional amendment on abortion (or any other amendment), it is irrelevant to anything he could do as president.

Amending the Constitution is a purely legislative function, possibly the only purely legislative function in the American system of government. To propose an amendment requires the assent of two-thirds of each house of Congress; to ratify it requires the approval of the legislatures in three-fourths of the states. Once this happens--which is exceedingly rare--the amendment comes into force regardless of the president, who has no veto power.

If Romney wants to amend the Constitution, he should run for Congress again, or for the state Legislature.

Good point. His advice to journalists, however...

Journalists, for their part, should be knowledgeable enough not to take terribly seriously would-be presidents' (or actual presidents') pronouncements about constitutional amendments they'd like to see.

...is a word to the wise for voters and activists, too. Supporting constitutional amendments is cheap in a presidential candidate and tells you absolutely nothing about what he intends to do. On the contrary, it often amounts to a declaration "I plan not to lift a finger in this area." Ditto most Congressional candidates, even though amendments are a legislative function. The difficulty in passing any amendment through 3/4 of the state legislatures is so great that support for amendments means little. If you ask a candidate what he will do to combat abortion and his sole response is, "I support a Human Life Amendment," what you have there is a very weak sister. He means, "Nothing."