The Constitution Stunt
The new Republican House has already decided that it’s first stunt is to read the Constitution out loud. The Republicans want to convince us that they are the one, true party of the Constitution. I agree with Greg Sargent’s take – that we should use this as an opportunity to talk about the Constitution instead of just rolling our eyes. David Waldman has a different suggestion, however.
Maybe John Lewis would like to read Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3?
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Or Sec. 9?
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
Just to make a point, perhaps?
That seems like a pretty good way to remind everyone that the Constitution isn’t like a book of the Bible, it’s a document that is aspirational but also flawed. We have come to our understanding of democracy through many years of mistakes, missteps and struggles.
Tags: Republican Hypocrisy, Teabaggers, U.S. House of Representatives
I think they should take their time with this stunt, so that they take the time to exercise their reading comprehension skills.
Everyone should really go to some of the wingnut sites to see how they view the Constitution. Wheew. On Hannity’s site they seem to skip over some very important lines.
Sect 8, To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
They argue that Congress only has the enumumerated powers, and it is those listed in sect 8. However they will not read the “provide for common defence and welfare”. welfare pretty much covers anything from health care to any social program.
The wingnuts will not concede that it even states this in sect 8.
Though they seem to still be mad that women have the right to vote and slavery was abolished. Clearly Congress has been out of control for a long time.
Exactly p18. The Constitution was not engraved on clay tablets on the top of Mt. Sinai. It’s the product of political compromise and was certainly meant to be a living document. The founders amended it themselves! What the wingnuts describe sounds much more like the Articles of Confederation, which was a failed experiment. It failed even way before the US was a superpower.
Let the Republicans read it. For most of them it will be for the first time.
The Constitution didn’t stop Republicans (and Democrats) from passing the ACORN bill of attainder.
Good point anon.
Oh please, anon.
UI, I disagree with calling it a bill of attainder. Though I disagree with defunding ACORN, calling it unconstitutional is circumspect.
And also, it is not the Congress that decides the “Constitutionality” of a law. If people have a problem with a law, they can bring it to the courts as people have done for over two hundred years.
Intersting article by Michael Lind on the GOP’s constitution fetish.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/republican_party/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/04/lind_tea_party_constitution
nemski..That is exactly the point. I keep hearing the entertainers on fox making the assertion, which seeems to stick with the idiots, that congress is both the judicial and legislative branch. It is that reading comprehension problem again.
UI, I agree with about 99% of what your comment said above. The part I disagree with is the living document. Too often the phrase is used to bend meanings and word usage to achieve a goal. The founders didn’t just say “we meant this phrase in this context…” they physically changed it by amending it. I feel that this is a major point. If society or ideas change, we can change the actual framwrork of our government.
Yeah — what possible relevance would the Constitution have to the legislative process, or to government in general, during the Obama Error?