| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Historic reading of Constitution sees House tussle |
| 2011-01-07 |
| Sigh.... only Congress could screw up reading of a 5 page document..... They didn't for the most part. WASHINGTON -- Republicans made history Thursday by staging the first-ever reading of the entire Constitution on the House floor. But that record may come with an asterisk: Democrats asked why original sections that later were amended, including references to slaves, were left out of the recital, and lawmakers initially did not catch that a couple of key paragraphs were omitted when two pages got stuck together. The former was done because the '3/5' rule is no longer part of the Constitution, having been superseded by the 14th Amendment. Disputes and glitches aside, Republican and Democratic lawmakers silenced their differences over what the words of the Founding Fathers mean for today's politics long enough to spend 90 decorous minutes reciting the venerable document. 90 minutes to read a 5 page document? I think I know why they don't read the bills they vote on anymore.... There was a certain seriousness to the reading. Having John Lewis read the 13th amendment was a nice touch. The document, long a subject both of reverence and wrangling, has never been read in its entirety in the House, and the event, coming on the second day of Republican control of the chamber, was a nod to the tea partiers who returned Republicans to power. Tea party backers often cited the Constitution in arguing that Washington is ignoring the limits of federal power outlined in the document. The reading also skipped the 18th Amendment that was ratified in 1919 to institute prohibition of alcohol. That amendment was overturned in 1933 by the 21st Amendment. Precisely. During the reading of the Constitution, lawmakers lined up to take their turn at the podium, with Goodlatte generally alternating speakers between the two parties. Some got to read from profound sections that describe how the new American government was to be set up and what were the rights of its citizens. Others got more prosaic sections regarding the oversight of forts and dockyards or the prohibition on office holders receiving gifts from foreign princes. The reading of one of the clauses most familiar to Americans, the Second Amendment provision on the right to bear arms, fell to freshman Republican Frank Guinta of New Hampshire. For the first hour of the recital the Republican side of the chamber was full, while far fewer Democrats occupied the other side. After an hour, the number of Republican listeners also declined. And some could not even take the time to listen.... |
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #12 SCREW the people in this country who get all of their news from the MFM and wouldn't know any better Whoops, my bad, they are ALREADY getting screwed. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-01-07 18:48 |
| #11 Then make sure a Democrat reads that part. (I have no doubt the MFM would edit the video. It wouldn't be the first time Couric, ABC News, and company have done that - ask Sarah Palin). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-01-07 18:40 |
| #10 My thought was that even with qualification, the MFM would just edit that out and show the congresscritter reading the original (now amended) text, followed by some comment along the lines of "apparently the GOP still supports slavery" or some such. There are still a lot of people in this country who get all of their news from the MFM and wouldn't know any better. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2011-01-07 18:27 |
| #9 Reading the 3/5 rule would have honored the Union dead buried in cemeteries surrounding the DC area. They could have omitted the 4th amendment, since that's being actively dishonored all over the country. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-01-07 15:03 |
| #8 Personally if they are going to read the constitution - then read the constitution. If they are going to read only the 'relevant' portions if the constitution then call it that. The 3/5's rule *is* still part of the constitution. Even though it has long been repealed - it is still part of the text. Clarifying it with a 'this amendment has been repealed by...' is appropriate IMHO. Those sections are still in there for a reason - if only as a reminder - and repealing them don't 'remove' them - it amends them. Did they skip the 10th Amendment? Because that sure isn't being honored. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-01-07 14:58 |
| #7 Personally, I think it should be left in. Both as a reminder of where we began, and also as a reminder of that Congress should avoid stepping out of line. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-01-07 14:29 |
| #6 Since they were going to be criticized no matter what they did, I think they chose correctly. PBMcL, as a political calculation, you're probably correct. Pub leadership, most likely, invisioned some race baiting reporter coaxing one of their members into saying something incredibly stupid regarding the 3/5's rule. But don't you find it a wee bit ironic that an excercise billed as a way to illustrate how legislation has drifted away from constitutional princples and twoards political expediency ommited language because it was...politically expediate? How very Progressive of them. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2011-01-07 14:06 |
| #5 3/5th is a lot more than the former owners and operators in London who recognized zero for the Irish. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-01-07 13:55 |
| #4 I respectfully disagree, DG. They read the supreme law of the land as it currently stands. I see no problem with leaving out historical sections which are no longer in force due to later amendment. They could have read those sections with a preamble such as "the following section was repealed or amended by the Xth amendment", but you and I both know that the MFM would have ignored this and gleefully claimed that the Trunks think that certain minorities are 3/5ths of a person. Since they were going to be criticized no matter what they did, I think they chose correctly. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2011-01-07 12:41 |
| #3 The former was done because the '3/5' rule is no longer part of the Constitution, having been superseded by the 14th Amendment. Wrong! The 3/5's rule is part of the Constitution. As well as the the 18th Amendment is also part of the Constitution. Becuase the Founders's understood the Constitution would be an imperfect document it was deemed vital that original language not be stricken after amendment or supersedence. The Constitution is first and foremost a bedrock frame work. But it is also a legacy. And yes, at times, an imperfect legacy. For the Congress to skip portions of the document is the height of arrogance and cowardice. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2011-01-07 11:30 |
| #2 Biggest surprise? Sheila Jackson Lee can read |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-01-07 09:17 |
| #1 Yes, it was a gimmick because it wasn't immediately followed by a closed book test on the subject, with grades publicly posted afterward. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-01-07 09:06 |