Left pretty mad that House read Constitution only as amended
posted at 7:27 pm on January 6, 2011 by Allahpundit
See Memeorandum for a round-up. The real reason they want the full document read, of course, is to have video of some Republican forced to read the since-repealed clause about slaves being three-fifths of a person so that they can use the clip in moronic attack videos. (Caption: “THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT!”) The Times made that clear enough in its editorial yesterday flagging that specific provision. The ostensible reasons they want the whole thing read are (a) it’s a historical whitewash to omit the slavery clauses, tantamount to expunging racial slurs from “Huckleberry Finn,” and (b) it’s an important reminder that the Founders weren’t infallible and that their work isn’t some sort of sacred text.
On the first point, see Ace’s post about the purpose of staging this public reading. The point wasn’t to deliver a public history lesson, it was to remind the elected members of the operative limits on their power. Clauses that haven’t been good law for 150 years aren’t operative limits, but in case anyone needed reminding of the constitutional legacy of slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment was indeed read aloud — by John Lewis, no less. As for the point about Twain, comparing a literary text to a legal text is iffy because the former is “complete” and “final” in a way that the latter never really is. If we’re intent on forcing a Twain analogy, a better one would be to compare early drafts of the manuscript to the final published text of the book. The author himself deemed parts of it unfit and made revisions accordingly; the same goes for the Constitution, provided that you consider “we the people” to be a discrete authorial entity over the passage of centuries. My analogy doesn’t quite work either because imperfect drafts of a literary text end up in an author’s desk while imperfect versions of a legal text have the full force of law until they’re repealed. But then, that’s my point — that the literary/legal comparison is problematic.
The second point, about conservatives worshiping the Constitution as a lost book of the Bible or something, is especially stupid given the popularity on the right of Randy Barnett’s “Repeal Amendment” and the fact that new tea party congressmen (including Rand Paul) are already naming a Balanced Budget Amendment as their price for raising the debt ceiling. In fact, a BBA is explicitly called for in tea partiers’ “Contract from America.” The problem isn’t, in other words, that the Founders are prophets whose every word is holy writ; it’s that they created a government whose powers were limited and provided an explicit process for adding to or subtracting from those powers, and too often both of those facts seem to be shrugged off. Change the Constitution if you like, but at least do it the right way.
Exit question: Who omitted more passages today, the GOP or the Democrats? Hmmmm.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Nice summary there, AP. Is there a way to dumb that down so that Joy Behar can comprehend it?
itsnotaboutme on January 6, 2011 at 7:30 PM
So, what was the excuse for not reading the prohibition amendment? They needed all of it because it is all part of our history. Besides, apparently none of them understand the significants of labeling blacks 3/5th of a person.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:32 PM
Too bad it was the Yankee invaders who insisted on this 3/5 rule to prevent Southern states from having “too much power”.
SouthernGent on January 6, 2011 at 7:33 PM
The Left being bothered by the reading of the document they’ve sworn to uphold really just says it all about them, doesn’t it?
latinchic on January 6, 2011 at 7:35 PM
That is it in a nutshell.
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:35 PM
It is all about how it looks to Liberals. The reality is unimportant.
IowaWoman on January 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM
I think it would have been priceless if Allen West read the three-fifth clause…just to see the left come unglued.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM
Our old buddy TheRaceCard is slobbering right now for sure.
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM
Is insanity not mad
http://www.theskanner.com/article/2011/01/06/VIDEO-Rep-Jackson-Asks-if-ThreeFifths-Clause-Will-be-in-House-Constitution-Reading
William Amos on January 6, 2011 at 7:37 PM
A book by Page Smith recounts the writing of the Constitution and how the delegates argued over *everything*, every word, phrase, clause, punctuation mark, every idea, the implications, the consequences…everything.
Much like today….
Skandia Recluse on January 6, 2011 at 7:37 PM
I knew there would be some kind of stink made over this. It could have been avoided by reading the original text, then noting those sections which had been amended out by whichever relevant amendment.
This would have had the added benefit of showing that the Constitution is a living document, via the amendment process.
Opportunity missed.
GnuBreed on January 6, 2011 at 7:38 PM
Why weren’t any Republicans dressed in Colonial attire?
That would have been classic.
portlandon on January 6, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Really? We’re going to play that silly game? They both omitted parts of the constitution. In my opinion they’re both uneducated cowards that not only lack the understanding the significance of our Constitution but don’t have to stones to read the bad in order to put the corrections into context.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:41 PM
I wonder when they train NFL or NBA officials if they read all the old rules and then learn the new rules.
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:42 PM
No, this was the best way to do it. Goodlett (?) said he conferred with the Library of Congress. He obviously anticipated the Dems obstructionism.
INC on January 6, 2011 at 7:42 PM
Any reminder that our government was meant to be limited is very irritating to lib/dems…
d1carter on January 6, 2011 at 7:42 PM
They shouldn’t have to. The rules were changed through the amendment process. (Pssst see my last post and answer THAT question)
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM
The Constitution is not a living document.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM
I saw some of the Dems with this silliness before the reading began–petty in the extreme.
And as AP said, just angling for that sound bite…
INC on January 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM
I hear some people treat their latino slaves really well.
PrezHussein on January 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM
Now you are just being a picky turd. Gnu was just making the point that it can be changed. Sheeeesh chill.
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:44 PM
Doing it this way was for the benefit of people with a 15-second attention span–like people with a “D” after their name. They’re easily confused.
RBMN on January 6, 2011 at 7:44 PM
They should have to because the founding fathers set up the constitution to reflect the bad amendments and their corrections instead of omitting the bad corrections or articles. They should read it as its written now.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:44 PM
I can understand both sides of this.
On one hand, the original shows the scars and warts of our early system.
On the other, when we amend the constitution, we say that the old parts are not part of it anymore.
If I have to pick, I say to read it as it happened. The benefit of learning and understanding who we are needs to take precedence.
BierManVA on January 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM
Everyone knows that the Founding Fathers were racist, homophobic Republicans who, nevertheless, had the presence of mind to include a right to an abortion.
BuckeyeSam on January 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM
Will they boycott and editorialize when Boehner has them say the pledge of allegience?
Moose Dung on January 6, 2011 at 7:46 PM
Is that what Ruth Bader Ginsberg meant when she said the Constitution was a living document?
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:46 PM
Did they have the fortitude to read the part about the constitutional requirements to be legally president?
Luka on January 6, 2011 at 7:47 PM
Duh no and I would bet you a grand that is not what GNU met you picky turd. : )
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:50 PM
Comparing our nation’s history to the rules of a game is really comparing apples to oranges. You will not be subjected to tyranny if you don’t understand the rules of football or baseball. You will be subjected to tyranny if you don’t understand what the articles and amendments mean and why they were put in or repealed.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:50 PM
Heh. +1
They knew back then who really runs things-women./
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:51 PM
So, do you always name call when have difficulty conducting an intelligent debate, or am I just that special?
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:52 PM
The reading of the Constitution could be looked at as a public spanking members of Congress rightly deserve.
It is a reminder, and not a fetish, as some on the left claim.
Kini on January 6, 2011 at 7:52 PM
Did any of the Libs heads explode?
Any of their heads spin?
Did they spew green bile?
Did their eyes bulge?
Did they show their talons?
Did any of them call on their sweet Lord Lucifer?
THAT is what I would expect we would see if they were in the room with the Constitution actually being spoken instead of being burned like the flag.
PappyD61 on January 6, 2011 at 7:52 PM
You haven’t watched too many NFL games./
The REALITY is that the Constitution was purposely set up to be changed if needed but through the amendment process. While it is important that in school your points are addressed it is not needed in this exercise in Congress.
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:53 PM
My point was stated that it is a living document through the amendment process, not through judicial fiat.
You are trying to conflate the two.
GnuBreed on January 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM
I’ve had but one opportunity to point out to a lefty that it was the pro-slavery states who wanted blacks counted as 1 person and the anti-slavery states didn’t want to count them at all. The confused, sputtering, reaction this caused was priceless.
landshark on January 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM
Much easier to point that out than to stay on topic.
Oh and to answer your point: NO …you are not special . Ask Crr or Esthier.
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:55 PM
She is just being a picky turd. Somehow I got it. She just does not want to get it.
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 7:56 PM
Have to agree with mizflame. The phrase “living document” has very specific meaning to those who claim that the Constitution is endlessly interpretable according to modern sensibilities, with penumbras and the like festooned around every article.
Missy on January 6, 2011 at 7:57 PM
So are the Articles of Confederation. And any other number of other documents. However, they are not part of the current legal foundation of our government.
If the purpose was a history lesson, I’d agree that the full historical document needed to be read, but my understanding of the purpose is to remind Congress of the Constitution as it stands today.
malclave on January 6, 2011 at 7:58 PM
You said living document. Generally that term is usually sputtered by a progressive to justify their bad interpretation of the constitution. I’m not saying you’re a progressive, I’m just pointing out why that phrase is used.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 7:58 PM
You obviously don’t live in Texas. ;)
malclave on January 6, 2011 at 7:59 PM
Read about the constitutional convention. If it weren’t for (ahem) certain holdouts slavery might have been abolished right then and there. Damn tragedy if you ask me, but we finally got through it after a lot of dead folks.
WitchDoctor on January 6, 2011 at 8:00 PM
I know this was symbolic, but the epic freakout by the left over this really did some damage to them. Just think about the way they are acting over this.
rob verdi on January 6, 2011 at 8:03 PM
Anyone who has been here for even a year would know GNU would not have meant it in a Nancy P sort of way.
Great post
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 8:03 PM
That is because many many lefties really do not believe in it.
They have been exposed further. TG.
CWforFreedom on January 6, 2011 at 8:04 PM
I wanted to show that ‘living document’ can be explained in a way that the libs don’t want it explained. Libs do not own the phrase, though they misuse it.
You can just concede the ground or fight over it. I prefer a fight. YMMV
GnuBreed on January 6, 2011 at 8:07 PM
We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, and no longer a continental congress. We follow the US Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation. By reading the entire Constitution it reminds congress that yes there were bad things but there has been constitutional corrections. That is one thing they seem to forget when they opt to legislate a “solution” to a perceived problem in our constitution.
Per your analogy it was OK for Barry to leave out “endowed by our creator” when he was talking about our Declaration of Independence because he’s the President and he doesn’t want to appear to be endorsing a religion.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 8:08 PM
Great points Allah!
I do have to say though, they should have read the whole thing, as written.
Glenn Beck was great on this today. we NEED to have the conversation about WHY slaves weren’t counted as “whole persons.” It’s the only reason we don’t have slaves with us now.
Had slaves been counted as full people, the south would have dominated Congress.
As Beck put it today, the 3/5 clause was a ticking time bomb designed to end slavery.
We NEED to have that conversation.
But I also get your point. The left would only use it as an attack ad.
gary4205 on January 6, 2011 at 8:11 PM
Wha…the left didn’t want to come celebrate the life of the document that they’re always say is “living”?
aw.
ted c on January 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM
Actually I do. I just refuse to kow tow to the football worship. I’m not a sports fan so I can’t get into the Aggies/Longhorns rivalry.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 8:14 PM
Gasp!
Revoke her TX citizenship!
j/k :)
Missy on January 6, 2011 at 8:17 PM
In a word, “no.”
BD57 on January 6, 2011 at 8:18 PM
I’m tired of worrying about how the ignorant left will interpret things. The Republicans don’t have the stones (or the desire) to show the world the truth, then maybe We, The People should.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 8:18 PM
LOL!
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 8:19 PM
CWforFreedom,
they really are showing their true colors about viewing the document as an impediment to their design rather then a solid charter on which to build a nation. I say again they are damaging themselves a quite deal over this.
rob verdi on January 6, 2011 at 8:22 PM
I think I understand your point, and I doubt many people would have objected if the entire historical document had been read, but I still believe it was valid to only read those parts which are still in force.
The Representatives swore an oath to uphold the Constitution (well, most of them did )… this reading, symbolic as it was, just reminds them what they are sworn to uphold, not the historical context.
And you’re not subjected to tyranny? Wow, Texans have mellowed since I was there. Granted, that was way back in high school, but I used to semi-joke that “football is the national religion of Texas, and Tom Landry pope”.
malclave on January 6, 2011 at 8:27 PM
Ummm, GnuBreed clearly qualified the statement to address the lame phrase in the first place.
Saltysam on January 6, 2011 at 8:34 PM
Hmmm, indeed. I admit I had to go look up the passages missed.
It seems that among the text skipped was “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”… coincidence, Mr. Nadler? :)
malclave on January 6, 2011 at 8:36 PM
I going to make some Tea.
Rock on, Tea Partiers. Never say die.
Saltysam on January 6, 2011 at 8:36 PM
Heh!!
Saltysam on January 6, 2011 at 8:37 PM
Would have been the icing on the proverbial cake for sure. :)
cableguy615 on January 6, 2011 at 8:37 PM
Wait! So they want to make fun of their own supporters’ stupidity? Wasn’t it the anti-slavery proponents that wanted slaves counted as zero so that pro slavery stated didn’t get over-represented?
MrX on January 6, 2011 at 8:37 PM
Every word of the actual Sacred Writ… the Bible… is amended as well.
Such as the stringent laws of Moses, how many steps do you take on the Sabbath Day? and which day of the week exactly, does the Sabbath fall on?… the health laws for example, circumcision for another… these things were amended. Christ came and fulfilled the Law, and set a new commandment above them.
My rambling point is, sacred writ is just not as static as many believe it to be. And I submit that amending sacred writ improves it and makes it all the more sacred.
petunia on January 6, 2011 at 8:43 PM
That is not at all what I meant to say… but read my mind here please. I meant that much of the Bible has been amended as well.
petunia on January 6, 2011 at 8:44 PM
I agree.
“Living document” is never used by those who want to amend it, only those who don’t want to bother with the appropriate Constitutional method, but just do end runs via judges.
INC on January 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM
Well at least they acknowledged black people have a soul… and didn’t think they were the evil spawn of Satan through Cain huh?
CCRWM on January 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM
A better question is who was paying attention to what the Constitution was saying. According to the article cited, the new conservative Republican was the one who was paying attention, and the loud mouthed corrupt Dhimmicrat was only giving lip service to the Constitution, didn’t recognize what he was reading, and couldn’t have cared less than he didn’t understand the Constitution and its requirements of him as a Representative of the House.
The news for the last year, despite the overwhelmingly liberalism of the media, has been rife with examples of Dhimmicrats being dismissive of the American people, ignorant of their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution, and willfully lying about facts in ways to undermine the war effort and paint honorable Men and Women as stupid, racist, and greedy, all the while grabbing more and more power to use against those they see as inferior.
The lack of character and leadership and compassion amongst the politicians and base of the Dhimmicrat party has never been more evident in the last 50 yrs of American history (and likely never in our history… I can only vouch for the last 50 yrs).
It is absolutely clear to me that they no longer have the interests of the American people in their heart, and they assume any authority and power they gain may be used to override anything they wish to further their aims. And their aim is to garner more absolute power for themselves at the expense of those they are certain are less worthy than they are.
Dictatorships begin in EXACTLY that way.
Subsunk
Subsunk on January 6, 2011 at 8:55 PM
I thought the Democrats believed in the Constitution. I thought they swore an oath to protect and defend it.
If they did, they would understand the purpose of the Amendments and the Amendment process. That they were desperate for the 3/5 section to be read indicates that they really don’t think that the 13th and 14th Amendments settled that issue over 140 years ago.
The reading today was not a history lesson. It was a reminder of the limited powers granted to government by the people.
It was a needed refresher course since the new rules will require all bills to reference a specific authority granted by the current, amended Constitution.
Jay Inslee, my district’s representative, is an arse and a showboating idiot.
SouthernRoots on January 6, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Sheila Jackson-Lee actually did her part and read some, I think it was the 4th Amendment that she had. The lesson there is that they can overcome their hatred for a little camera time.
slickwillie2001 on January 6, 2011 at 9:07 PM
It’s still that way here. I’m just not a native Texan. I just got here as fast as I could. I had to abandon the birthplace of our nation because Philadelphia is far too progressive to hang out around the Alamo.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 9:14 PM
Yawn…hmm? Sorry, for a minute there I thought you said something intelligent. I think you need to study some history before you try to stir the pot.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 9:17 PM
Blasphemous Metaphors will get you no brownie points Allahpundit. First of all the Constitution is not a lost book, IT IS A FOUNDING DOCUMENT and the lifeblood of our sovereign liberty. While today’s “children of public learning” find the Constitution boring and outdated, those who have had family die to protect it might find the document as precious as the scriptures—(but not akin to dieing on the cross for the world’s sins)—yet put in perspective, this nation’s souls who have died protecting this document have made a similar sacrifice. Don’t portend to suggest how conservatives “worship” the Constitution and the Bible, they are not even close to being the same. One should guarantee our inalienable rights, while the other guarantees our eternal life—- BIG DIFFERENCE!
Rovin on January 6, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Rush touched on the 3/5th’s clause today. Here’s a piece of the transcript, and link to the full.
RUSH: By the way, for the son of the Reverend Jackson, Jesse Jackson Jr., this is important. I wonder how many people today realize that it was the slave states in the days of our founding who wanted to count slaves for representation and distribution of taxes. It was the abolitionists — in other words, the Democrats of the day — during the founding who didn’t want slaves counted at all for representation. The three-fifths of a person calculation was a grudging compromise from both sides, and isn’t “compromise” always supposed to be wonderful? After all, women were being counted back then — and, like slaves, they couldn’t vote either. So it was the slave states that wanted to count the slaves as citizens, human beings. And it was the white abolitionists of the day, Democrats of the day, who didn’t. So compromise gave us the three-fifths notion.
capejasmine on January 6, 2011 at 9:31 PM
Right on target. The Northern non-slave states wanted to count slaves as 3/5 of a person in order to maintain control of the House of Representative. In 1787 there were more slaves in South Carolina than free people. Sadly, one reason The Citadel was founded by the State of South Carolina was to train a force to put down slave rebellions.
SC.Charlie on January 6, 2011 at 9:47 PM
I thought it was a great idea in concept. Unfortunately, in practice, it took away what little hope that I had that this new Congress would be somewhat competent.
The “Reading of the Constitution”, and the arguments preceding the reading, Like: Which Constitution would be read, Who would get to read which parts, In what language it would be read, etc. illustrated all too well that we are not going to get out of this downward spiral.
Before Fox News cut away from it in boredom, it was pretty obvious to me that about one out of five of them is nearly illiterate, and that four out of five of them have no love nor interest in the Constitution, and would have much preferred to be just about anywhere else doing almost anything else. Pelousy quite literally choked on the words of Article 1 Section 1, despite it being innocuous and not limiting her power to rule over us peasants like some of the later stuff.
And the “I yield to the Gentleman(woman)from (State) Mr.(s) (Name)” in between every paragraph took away any continuity and educational opportunity that could have been provided by the reading, had it been done by one or two good readers who have some passion for the document.
Despite its potential to be an epic event, this whole episode was a huge disappointment.
LegendHasIt on January 6, 2011 at 9:49 PM
Did you see any dogs or ponies in the chamber?
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 9:58 PM
As a result of the Sixteenth Amendment, most of us in business have become less than 1/3rd of a person. One third or more of income to business expenses, one third or more to taxes, and what’s left for us to live on… a pebble’s splash in a raging river. ✪
TXUS on January 6, 2011 at 9:59 PM
The 18th Amendment needed to be read out for two reasons.
1) The 21st makes no sense without it.
2) To remind the Left that social engineering via the Constitution does not work.
History is reflected in the document as a reminder to us all… plus did they take out the part that disallowed personal taxation? We really needed that read out, too, because we didn’t have that before the Progressives snookered us into it.
ajacksonian on January 6, 2011 at 10:00 PM
TOTUS should have been there.
unclesmrgol on January 6, 2011 at 10:04 PM
The entire Constitution is a social engineering contract.
unclesmrgol on January 6, 2011 at 10:05 PM
massrighty on January 6, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Bourbon + long days = poor formatting.
massrighty on January 6, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Rush has it wrong. The abolitionists were the Republicans, and they didn’t want anyone profiting from slavery.
unclesmrgol on January 6, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Your zealous march has been hindered by a mine field of outrageous misinterpretations, punctuation problems, poor usage, sloppy structure, & a malapropism.
There are times when our host AllahPundit desperately needs correction. This is not one of those times.
itsnotaboutme on January 6, 2011 at 10:18 PM
Actually, one thing Barry was right about is the Constitution is a document of negative laws. A constitution that reflects a social engineering contract is the constitution of the Soviet Union…the one Barry prefers.
mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 10:26 PM
i think the south wanted the slaves to count toward their population so that their states would have more weight in the House. but, of course, the slaves couldn’t vote. So the 3/5ths was a compromise…that they could count only 3/5ths their slave population.
r keller on January 6, 2011 at 10:38 PM
.
.
Hmmm, indeed.
After spending the last few days all over the msm b*tching and moaning about this reading, he just ‘happened’ to skip the part which reads “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ”.
Gee, what a co-inky-dink.
mrt721 on January 6, 2011 at 10:45 PM
I wouldn’t used the word amended about the Bible.
Old Testament Law includes moral, civil and ceremonial. God’s moral law is eternal. The civil was for Israel. The ceremonial was an expression of spiritual realities (Hebrews 10:1 “a shadow of the good things to come”).
When Jesus died on the cross, the veil between the Holy place and the Holy of Holies was torn in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27 & Mark 15). Hebrews 7-10 makes it clear that now Christ was “offered once to bear the sins of many” (9:28) and He “offered one sacrifice for sin for all time” (10:12). There is no longer any need for the laws of sacrifice.
INC on January 6, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Or as Andy Griffith called football refs in 1958, “convicts”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNxLxTZHKM8
He would never be allowed to do that bit today.
Speaking of which, be sure to try and catch the NFL Network’s “NFL Sound FX” episode that they have been running this week featuring the evil Bill Belichick. They actually make him sound human! And they even have bonus footage of him and Charlie Weis chewing out the troops before Charlie flew elsewhere.
Del Dolemonte on January 6, 2011 at 10:52 PM
I disagree 100%.
The unamended constitution isn’t the Constitution.
The amended constitution is the Constitution.
If a document has been changed, then the actual document reflects that change.
That would be like an NFL referee conference that decides to read old rules that have been changed.
blink on January 6, 2011 at 11:27 PM
The amended Constitution is the law of the land. That is the point, for Congress to know and understand what law they are currently operating under. History lessons are nice, but not the point here.
Missy on January 7, 2011 at 12:05 AM
The Constitution is the basic Law of the Land, but for a Senator or Representative it is more: it is their primary allegiance, to which they have sworn an oath.
That makes Pelosi and company oathbreakers. It makes SCOTUS judges who ignore the written Constitution oathbreakers as well.
njcommuter on January 7, 2011 at 1:41 AM
What the historically illiterate Democrats never get right is that counting only three-fifths of the slaves was an anti-slavery measure. Frederick Douglas argued it should be zero. The South wanted the slaves counted as inhabitants so that they could get more representatives in Congress so they could keep slavery intact.
Tantor on January 7, 2011 at 7:00 AM
I get it that tea partiers identify with tea, as a symbol of the movement and all (with which I sympathize and identify, but have never attended a rally). However, wouldn’t it be more historically consistent to refuse to drink tea, given that the original tea party had them throwing the tea in the sea to protest the tax, and hence is why America is largely a coffee drinking country? Wouldn’t it be a better symbol to go drink some coffee?
samuelrylander on January 7, 2011 at 10:15 AM
After Spending an Hour Reading U.S. Constitution, House Commits to Reading All 162,000 Pages of Code of Federal Regulations Over Next 23 Years
Mervis Winter on January 7, 2011 at 10:23 AM
From the Oath of Office, sworn to just this week:
If they do not take the obligation freely, if they have reservations about it. Go home! Let someone serve who understands our government!
This is the most basic requirement of being part of our government. You must believe in it!!!!!!
I’m truly afraid that we have many members of Congress who do not believe our system is sacrosanct. They seem to feel that “evasion” of the Constitution is why they are sent to Congress… yet they take an Oath to the contrary.
I understand these words were put there right after the Civil War, to weed out those who would over throw our Constitution, most especially the amendment about black citizens being whole persons. That was the controversial part in that day. Yet those very persons are leading the charge against the document that assures their God given humanity is respected!
Amazing.
This reason for the oath was never more clear.
petunia on January 7, 2011 at 12:01 PM
I do think the history of Tea in America is being rewritten, or like our Constitution, the history of Tea can be amended, and it is.
I think I need to make some chamomile right now.
petunia on January 7, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Once all references to slavery have been expunged, will we then see the advent of the Slavery Denier???? Hummmm! If there is no record, did it happen?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »