Article

2011-01-07 Home Front: Politix

Historic reading of Constitution sees House tussle

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by CrazyFool 2011-01-07 08:35|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#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|| 2011-01-07 09:06|| Front Page Top

#2 Biggest surprise? Sheila Jackson Lee can read

Posted by Frank G 2011-01-07 09:17|| 2011-01-07 09:17|| Front Page Top

#3 The former was done because the '3/5' rule is no longer part of the Constitution, having been superseded by the 14th Amendment.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|| 2011-01-07 11:30|| Front Page Top

#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 I see no problem with leaving out historical sections which are no longer in force due to later amendment. They could have read those sections with a preamble such as "the following section was repealed or amended by the Xth amendment", but you and I both know that the MFM would have ignored this and gleefully claimed that the Trunks think that certain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|| 2011-01-07 12:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2011-01-07 13:55|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2011-01-07 14:06|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2011-01-07 14:29|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2011-01-07 14:58|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2011-01-07 15:03|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2011-01-07 18:27|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2011-01-07 18:40|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2011-01-07 18:48|| Front Page Top

00:01 RandomJD
23:59 SteveS
23:48 SteveS
23:41 trailing wife
23:39 RandomJD
23:23 CrazyFool
23:21 trailing wife
22:51 trailing wife
22:43 twobyfour
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:18 JosephMendiola
22:16 JosephMendiola
21:47 Frank G
21:42 SteveS
21:31 Frank G
21:09 Rambler in Virginia
21:05 AzCat
21:01 Thing From Snowy Mountain
20:43 Nimble Spemble
20:41 Capsu78
19:51 bigjim-CA
19:37 JosephMendiola
19:34 JosephMendiola
19:29 JosephMendiola