Republicans can't even read the Constitution without screwing it up.

[garlic_b]

This was the first time the Constitution was read aloud in Congress.

One very simple thing to do. And yet.

Compromise defining slaves as 3/5 of person. Left out.
18 Amendment left out.
Article 4 Section 4 left out.
Among others.

Notable passages of Constitution left out of reading in the House

Even the parts that have been repealed are still parts of the constitution and should be read.

It's gunna be a long 2 years.

 

[down3green]

Maybe they did mess it up but even if they left out 99% of it they'd still have read more than a lot of Dems!

LOL

 

[melensdad]

Actually I think they should have had a reading of the ENTIRE Constitution. The GOP chose to read the ACTIVE portions of the Constitution, so they planned to omit the part about the slaves being only partial people and other legally moot points for one simple reason, those portions have been legally voided by amendments that are currently legal.

On the other hand, a couple of uber-liberal Democrats wanted the slave portion included because they argued that it was important. To be intellectually honest and historically correct they argued. Still, to show how disingenuous they really are, they didn't bother to also argue about including the PROHIBITION amendment. So the Dems did nothing more than put on a sad little show within the chambers. Instead of learning something they were smug bastards who proved how small they really are.

I do question not only the motives of the Democrats, but also the motives of the author linked in the first post. Why is it important to include articles that have been taken out of the constitution by new amendments? They are no longer legal. They have been nullified by newer portions of the same document via the amendment process. So why criticize the GOP for only reading the ACTIVELY LEGAL portions of the document?

 

[spearheadersarge]

At least they are heading in the right direction. I'm sick of the "we make up the rules as we see fit cause we're in charge" mentality. The Democrats really pissed people off with their rammming of unread bills, written by who the hell knows, down American's throats. We can't keep going on the way we have, we just can't borrow enough money to give cradle to grave life garrantees for everyone. Obama and his friends have spent more money in two years than all the previouse presidents before him COMBINED!!!! Where has that gotten us? The same place we already were just deeper in debt! Many times in our nation's history we have tried to spend our way out of a recession. It has NEVER worked, EVER! Why do we keep running back to dumb Keynsian approaches to fix the economy? Tarp, Stimulus, Bailouts have been the greatest theft in the hisory of the world!

 

[gemlit-eyed]

I don't understand the reason to read the repealed parts. The repealed sections no longer apply. I would rather the focus be on what is active now. Reading the repealed parts muddies the water.

 

[Cloverdaleman]

I don't understand the reason to read the repealed parts. The repealed sections no longer apply. I would rather the focus be on what is active now. Reading the repealed parts muddies the water.

I agree, I sometimes wonder peoples motives. Those parts that are no longer law, don't need to be read.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Perhaps we should go back to the 111th Congress where the Constitution was used as toilet paper?

Seriously people, freaking grow up.

 

[dross]

Slaves being 3/5 of a person is so constantly misunderstood at best, and purposefully misused at worse.

If slaves had been designated as complete people it would have had the effect of increasing the number of representatives from slave states. The anti slavery position at that time was that slaves should count for ZERO, which would have been the proper way to measure, since they were denied the vote and other rights. The slaveholders would have LOVED for slaves to count as a full person.

What was a compromise to limit the power of slave states has now been twisted through ignorance to attack the Constitution.

This has been one of the most quoted clauses in the Constitution to argue for the concept of the "living Constitution" which in practice means that the folks who can't get the document changed through proper means - amendment - can get it changed by appointing judges who have no loyalty to the document iself, only to their own ideology.

I suspect that's why it wasn't read, because of the large number of people who use it to undermine the Constitution.

That said, since the purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate their intent to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, not to give a history lesson, it makes perfect sense to me to read only the part of the document still in operation that will affect the laws they make right now. Should they have read the prohibition amendment and the one repealing it as well? I don't think so. It wasn't a history class.

 

[christman]

I'm just impressed that people "old fashion" enough to use slaves were smart enough to use fractions for defining them.

 

[4sarge]

Slaves being 3/5 of a person is so constantly misunderstood at best, and purposefully misused at worse.

If slaves had been designated as complete people it would have had the effect of increasing the number of representatives from slave states. The anti slavery position at that time was that slaves should count for ZERO, which would have been the proper way to measure, since they were denied the vote and other rights. The slaveholders would have LOVED for slaves to count as a full person.

What was a compromise to limit the power of slave states has now been twisted through ignorance to attack the Constitution.

This has been one of the most quoted clauses in the Constitution to argue for the concept of the "living Constitution" which in practice means that the folks who can't get the document changed through proper means - amendment - can get it changed by appointing judges who have no loyalty to the document iself, only to their own ideology.

I suspect that's why it wasn't read, because of the large number of people who use it to undermine the Constitution.

That said, since the purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate their intent to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, not to give a history lesson, it makes perfect sense to me to read only the part of the document still in operation that will affect the laws they make right now. Should they have read the prohibition amendment and the one repealing it as well? I don't think so. It wasn't a history class.

to You. Ignorance abounds and is bliss to the masses. So few take the time to investigate or have the knowledge but will condemn without investigation. Knowledge is Power and the intentional dumming down of the populace has occurred for a long time. Thanks for taking the time to help educate those who did not know. to me, I knew but had given up on trying to educate the seemingly unwilling that abide by the PC labeling

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

That's because they were reading the governing document, not the historical one.

Amendments to the Constitution don't just fall in line after the Constitution like they do in books and on the Interzweb. They change, add, and remove words in the document itself. The Constitution they read it is as it exists as a legal document today.

 

[grizman]

Should have brought in a torn, tattered, soiled and partially destroyed copy on a gurney and hit it with a defibrillator! Poor thing has been repeatedly raped, abused and ignored for the past two years!

The point was made regardless, the Constitution shall no longer be ignored in this place, it is as relevant now as the first day it was ratified! It is and always has been the road map guiding this nation. I hope that I can say WELCOME BACK OLD FRIEND, and it be true! Only time will tell.

 

[pudly]

Republicans can't even read the Constitution without screwing it up.

Translation: Leftists angry that Republicans want to emphasize what the government is supposed to be doing, rather than the parts that have since been overturned.

 

[Expat]

I'm just impressed that people "old fashion" enough to use slaves were smart enough to use fractions for defining them.

If you read dross's comment above, he makes the point that is not taught in history classes for some reason
It was the anti-slave North that wanted the 3/5 rule put in. So us dumb southerners weren't the ones that were using fractions.

 

[garlic_b]

Translation: Leftists angry that Republicans want to emphasize what the government is supposed to be doing, rather than the parts that have since been overturned.

Though I am a mildly "leftist" and a bit "angry", it has nothing to do with Republicans wanting the government to do what it is supposed to do, of which I am in complete support. My complaints are mostly from using the Constitution as a prop in Political theater.

I firmly believe that if we're going to read the constitution, we should read it as a whole. The parts that were repeal and modified by the amendment process are important in that it informs us of our history, not to mention gives context to those amendments that do the actual repealing.

 

[garlic_b]

Should have brought in a torn, tattered, soiled and partially destroyed copy on a gurney and hit it with a defibrillator! Poor thing has been repeatedly raped, abused and ignored for the past two years!

The point was made regardless, the Constitution shall no longer be ignored in this place, it is as relevant now as the first day it was ratified! It is and always has been the road map guiding this nation. I hope that I can say WELCOME BACK OLD FRIEND, and it be true! Only time will tell.

If by two years, you mean 10. Then yes I agree with you!

 

[Expat]

Though I am a mildly "leftist" and a bit "angry", it has nothing to do with Republicans wanting the government to do what it is supposed to do, of which I am in complete support. My complaints are mostly from using the Constitution as a prop in Political theater.

I firmly believe that if we're going to read the constitution, we should read it as a whole. The parts that were repeal and modified by the amendment process are important in that it informs us of our history, not to mention gives context to those amendments that do the actual repealing.

I think they should also read the Federalist Papers, the DOI, letters between Jefferson and Adams, Madison's veto statement.... for in some of those documents it is emphasized how limited the powers of the Federal government were meant to be.

 

[garlic_b]

Perhaps we should go back to the 111th Congress where the Constitution was used as toilet paper?

Seriously people, freaking grow up.

Or the previous admin that regarded it as "just a ******* piece of paper".

 

[garlic_b]

I think they should also read the Federalist Papers, the DOI, letters between Jefferson and Adams, Madison's veto statement.... for in some of those documents it is emphasized how limited the powers of the Federal government were meant to be.

Not a bad idea. Should throw in the Articles of Confederation while we're at it. To provide contrast.

 

[ghostinthewood]

If by two years, you mean 10. Then yes I agree with you!

I tried to rep you but i have to spread it around. =p


I would even say it could be more than 10 years, but then it doesn't make bashing Obama so special. =p