Reading of the Constitution

• ptown_trojans_1

  

  The House is reading the Constitution aloud, a first, oddly.
  I'm all for it. But, apparently the R's only are reading the most recent version, "Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read."
  
  Odd. If you want to read it, read the whole thing, even the parts that have been outdated or replaced.
  What are the R's afraid of the argument that the Constitution is a living breathing document?
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010602807.html?hpid=topnews
  
  Still, cool to hear.
• Con_Alma

  Personally I'd rather the House follow it than read it.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Con_Alma;628050 wrote:Personally I'd rather the House follow it than read it.

  
  True, true.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I like it and it's a tradition that should be followed by all subsequent houses of the US government (Senate and Supreme Court). It's not a long read.
  
  I agree with Ptown that all amendments should be read, including the Bill of Rights. If they are part of it, then they should be treated as being part of it. The "living Constitution" has to do with words like, "provide the general welfare" and "separation of church and state". jab jab jab Since these words aren't in any of the documents, then they should not be read to begin with.
• Apple

  

  Looks like a "Birther" interrupted the reading just as they got to the presidential eligibility section. Drudge had the link to The Hill article
• fish82

  

  Theatrical, but still cool imo.
• derek bomar

  

  gotta love the comments on the hill website saying he's not a natural born citizen bc his dad wasn't from here...where the fuck was him mom from? The moon?
• BoatShoes

  derek bomar;628189 wrote:gotta love the comments on the hill website saying he's not a natural born citizen bc his dad wasn't from here...where the fuck was him mom from? The moon?

  
  Yes the comments bring the lulz but at the same time...sheesh...
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Love the birthers. They provide an excellent example of Ron White's saying, "You can't fix stupid."
• Bigdogg

  How much did this cost the taxpayers?
• queencitybuckeye

  Bigdogg;628262 wrote:How much did this cost the taxpayers?

  
  Likely less than it would cost us for them to do the people's business.
• Bigdogg

  queencitybuckeye;628264 wrote:Likely less than it would cost us for them to do the people's business.

  
  How many jobs did it create? How did it help eliminate the deficit?
• queencitybuckeye

  Bigdogg;628272 wrote:How many jobs did it create? How did it help eliminate the deficit?

  
  When was the last time the House of Representative accomplished either of those?
• I Wear Pants

  I think the point was that we were supposed to be changing the culture from day one and creating jobs and eliminating the deficit. That's what Republicans have said will happen when they took over Congress. Of course it wasn't going to happen in a day but for one of the first things you do to be something purely theatrical is sort of ridiculous.
• jhay78

  

  ^^ So when Reps are sworn in and pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution, it that theatrical too?
  
  The past two years have been the most theatrical circus of a Congress in our nation's history, so I say let 'em spend a week reading, parsing, exegeting, and studying the Constitution. Better than running our nation off a cliff . . .
• I Wear Pants

  That was my point. I thought these guys were supposed to get rid of the circus and theatrics. Not start a different round to another song.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;628291 wrote:I think the point was that we were supposed to be changing the culture from day one and creating jobs and eliminating the deficit. That's what Republicans have said will happen when they took over Congress. Of course it wasn't going to happen in a day but for one of the first things you do to be something purely theatrical is sort of ridiculous.

  So you don't like the Constitution?
  
  As I said...yeah, it's theatrical. Is is also poignant/relevant? You bet yer azz it is.
• fish82

  

  Bigdogg;628262 wrote:How much did this cost the taxpayers?

  Probably as much as the cost of the oxygen you waste in 24 hours. Is that the best you have today?
• Bigdogg

  fish82;628409 wrote:Probably as much as the cost of the oxygen you waste in 24 hours. Is that the best you have today?

  
  I would hope they were pretty knowledgeable with the Constitution before they got elected. Sounds to me like the same old thing again.
  
  I am sure a Canadian like you can come up with a better insult to demonstrate your intelligence.
• tk421

  

  fish82;628409 wrote:Probably as much as the cost of the oxygen you waste in 24 hours. Is that the best you have today?

  
  
  Better tax that. After all, according to the EPA we all pollute the Earth every time we exhale.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I Wear Pants;628291 wrote:I think the point was that we were supposed to be changing the culture from day one and creating jobs and eliminating the deficit. That's what Republicans have said will happen when they took over Congress. Of course it wasn't going to happen in a day but for one of the first things you do to be something purely theatrical is sort of ridiculous.

  
  Oh come on.
  It is symbolic, yes. But, the R's still plan on moving their agenda. It is the second day of the new Congress and did not take that long to read actually.
  Also, Committees are not even fully assigned yet, staff isn't fully filled, offices still unpacking, etc. So, actual substance is not likely during the first week.
• majorspark

  

  Bigdogg;628262 wrote:How much did this cost the taxpayers?

  
  Its cost the taxpayers a lot more ignoring it.
• fish82

  

  Bigdogg;628427 wrote:I would hope they were pretty knowledgeable with the Constitution before they got elected. Sounds to me like the same old thing again.
  
  I am sure a Canadian like you can come up with a better insult to demonstrate your intelligence.

  Sure I can, hoser.
  
  I just save them for those who actually pose a challenge.
• I Wear Pants

  ptown_trojans_1;628430 wrote:Oh come on.
  It is symbolic, yes. But, the R's still plan on moving their agenda. It is the second day of the new Congress and did not take that long to read actually.
  Also, Committees are not even fully assigned yet, staff isn't fully filled, offices still unpacking, etc. So, actual substance is not likely during the first week.

  Indeed, I just don't like that if the Dems would have won and done this many on this board would be yelling about how it's all theatrics or for show.
  
  But they probably should read this for every new congress.
• Apple

  

  I have a feeling that part of the reason the Constitution was read is rooted in the new Speaker's Catholic up-bringing. Not to make this discussion about religion, but there are times during the Catholic mass, (not at every mass), when the Apostle Creed is recited. It basically reminds everyone why they are there and about what they believe. It's usually a pain in the neck when the priest decides to start it, but it does remind everyone why they are there.
  
  Maybe Boehner decided that just as the Apostle Creed reminds where the church is from, so to, reading the Constitution reminds Congress from where the USA comes. It wasn't a bad thing to do reading it today. I think the intention was good and it does demonstrate that the leadership understands their responsibility and they intend to respect the law of the land.