Reading of the Constitution
-
redfalcon
Actually, yes. It really accomplishes nothing, other than serving a ceremonial start to their job. They could just as easily just walk in at noon and start their job and d just fine.jhay78;628351 wrote:^^ 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 . . .
The reading of the constitution is pure political show. Was everyone even on the floor when it was read? Did this really provide any awe inspiring news or thoughts for anyone who heard it? No.
Was their crucial bills and other urgent items that they (Dems or Reps) could have done instead? Yes?
Would they have? Probably not. -
j_crazy
Con_Alma;628050 wrote:Personally I'd rather the House follow it than read it.
To follow it they must know it. Maybe this is the first step towards that. -
HitsRus
Damn good idea, to articulate that which you intend to operate under and for....a statement of purpose. Hardly a waste of time, except to those who would disdain it, or legislate without deference to it. It might be a good thing to read before all new sessions of Congress.
It seems to me that it would be irrelevant to read anything but the current version.... that is theConstitution that we operate under, the real, living, breathing, document. I suppose you could read the original as a history lesson, but that would really be 'odd' unless your purpose was to return to the original.But, apparently the R's only are reading the most recent version, "Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read."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 If you want to read it, read the whole thing, even the parts that have been outdated or replaced.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?
-
Apple
Any time spent by Congress not actively trying to raise taxes means it is not as costly to the taxpayers.Bigdogg;628262 wrote:How much did this cost the taxpayers?
Given what one liberal pundit said, (I forget her name but she was on the radio today), that it cost 2 million dollars to read the Constitution, when compared to Speaker Pelosi's $3.66 Billion added to the debt each day during her tenure, it was money spent better than flying the former Speaker's personal Lear jet at her whim for the past four years.
Final Tab for Pelosi's Speakership: $5.34 Trillion in New Debt - Or $3.66 Billion Per Day
It is hilarious listening to the socialist liberals and their supporters talk about how much things cost now that they've been thrown out of office due primarily to their extravagant spending while in power.
Those who deride today's reading of the Constitution, mock which version is read and put a dollar amount on reading it are doing nothing but throwing up a red herring in an attempt to divert attention away from the reality of the situation and risk ending up looking like whiney, foolish losers.
The Republicans reading of the Constitution was indeed done for show. It shows they are serious about their quest to reign in big government and get back to the basics of running the country under the letter of the law and regaining the trust of the voters who sent them to Washington to do just that.
Given the history of Republicrats to screw things up, I have my doubts whether or not they will continue on this path they have embarked. Kudos to them for at least trying to start off in the right direction. -
redfalcon
Its even funnier to hear the right wing nut jobs claim that they are going to stop the spending when their proposals to cut spending exclude 25 percent of the federal budget, their proposals to cut health care will cost $230 billion over ten years, and that the last time they were in pwer the set record deficits for the time.Apple;628696 wrote: It is hilarious listening to the socialist liberals and their supporters talk about how much things cost now that they've been thrown out of office due primarily to their extravagant spending while in power.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0107-healthcare-repeal-20110106,0,4826447.story -
Apple
redfalcon- my hope is that the right wing nut job comment was not meant for me since I am a registered Democrat. Both parties have fallen out of grace for me.
To be more on topic with your health care comment and the thread, it is my belief that it is wrong to accept the premise that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health care to citizens. There was nothing read today in the Constitution that says it is the federal government's responsibility to provide health care to citizens.
Don't take that the wrong way and gather that I don't think there is a place for a government entity to provide health care to citizens. When responsibility does not appear in the Constitution, it falls to the states to make the law. If Wyoming wants to subsidize the health care if its citizens, that's fine with me. Just don't expect me, living and working in Ohio, to flip the bill. -
majorspark
I hear ya man. I am a registered republican. I stopped giving my hard earned cash to them quite some time ago. They have fallen out of grace with me as well.Apple;628770 wrote:redfalcon- my hope is that the right wing nut job comment was not meant for me since I am a registered Democrat. Both parties have fallen out of grace for me.
When it comes to the constitution and federal involvement in health care, you nailed it. Like you many would label me some kind of right wing nut bag becuase I do not believe the federal government possesses certain powers. Like I have said many times before, the constitution does not prohibit socialism or collectivism (whatever you want to call it). It just lays out what levels of government within the union have the authority to choose to implement it. Also like you I have I have no problem with certain government entities being one of the vehicles to provide for our collective social needs.Apple;628770 wrote:To be more on topic with your health care comment and the thread, it is my belief that it is wrong to accept the premise that it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health care to citizens. There was nothing read today in the Constitution that says it is the federal government's responsibility to provide health care to citizens.
Don't take that the wrong way and gather that I don't think there is a place for a government entity to provide health care to citizens. When responsibility does not appear in the Constitution, it falls to the states to make the law. If Wyoming wants to subsidize the health care if its citizens, that's fine with me. Just don't expect me, living and working in Ohio, to flip the bill.
If you want to ban soda pop in San Fransisco. Go for it. You have the authority under the constitution. And I could care less. I'll enjoy mine here in Ohio. And those in San Fransisco that don't like it have the freedom to come join me in Ohio. But if the feds in DC find it within their authority to do so nationally they will have to pry it out of my cold dead fingers. -
majorspark
redfalcon;628742 wrote:Its even funnier to hear the right wing nut jobs claim that they are going to stop the spending when their proposals to cut spending exclude 25 percent of the federal budget, their proposals to cut health care will cost $230 billion over ten years, and that the last time they were in pwer the set record deficits for the time.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0107-healthcare-repeal-20110106,0,4826447.story
Some things to note about the congressional budget office. To believe they are non-partisan and are some how devoid of political pressure would be foolish. The director of the CBO is jointly appointed by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
To say that these two highly political figures never let their politics influence their judgment would be ridiculous. To say the CBO is always 100% non-partisan would also be ignorant. They are flawed human beings whose jobs depend on powerful political figures.
As with any government agency there are some good solid people. I am not saying they will never stand up against reckless government spending. At times they have. I am just saying that to believe they are devoid of politics would be naive. They often act as nothing more than a political tool providing cover for the legislature. In the end they have no legislative power and Congress will do as it pleases.
Another thing their projections quite often suck. This article was written when the congressional republicans were fixing to pass an expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug coverage. It reflected on past CBO projections. The article was calling out bullshit on the republicans.
I have posted quotes from it before.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...JlMmU5ZTg5MjI=
In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.
The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit—subsequently repealed—from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion. -
ptown_trojans_1
I don't agree with all parts, but shows the mistakes and missed opportunities by R's in reading the document.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/07fri2.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211
It would have been better if after the whole reading, they went through the official history of the document, how it has changed throughout American history and has evolved to fit the American society and how society has fit it.
But, instead we got a flat reading of some of it. -
Bigdoggfish82;628468 wrote:Sure I can, hoser.
I just save them for those who actually pose a challenge.
I have scraped better stuff off my shoe then you. -
jhay78
ptown_trojans_1;628866 wrote:I don't agree with all parts, but shows the mistakes and missed opportunities by R's in reading the document.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/07fri2.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211
It would have been better if after the whole reading, they went through the official history of the document, how it has changed throughout American history and has evolved to fit the American society and how society has fit it.
But, instead we got a flat reading of some of it.
You know as soon as they read the 3/5th's of a person part dealing with representation, liberals (in Congress or the media) would've been like, "Aarrgggh, see, the Republicans want to bring back slavery" or "the Republicans think slavery was OK". -
O-Trap
jhay78;629092 wrote:You know as soon as they read the 3/5th's of a person part dealing with representation, liberals (in Congress or the media) would've been like, "Aarrgggh, see, the Republicans want to bring back slavery" or "the Republicans think slavery was OK".
This kind of foresight is why you add prefaces to any section dealing with such sensitive subjects. It's really an easy fix, and it would have been nice to get into the history of the document afterward, as ptown said. -
ptown_trojans_1
Yeah, I actually would have been all for a reading of the whole Constitution. But, then a reading of the official record of the writing process at the time and how the Constitution has been changed, altered and added to and what those changes meant at the time, their impact today and potential impact in the future.
That could have happened the rest of the day and would have been very fruitful in my view.
At least to me, the Constitution is just part of the story, the rest of the story is the story behind the amendments, additions, subtractions, etc. Congress and the American people could really learn from that. -
Thread Bomber
Yep... The R's don't even know how to read the a document that should be the cornerstone of every thing that they do.O-Trap;629112 wrote:This kind of foresight is why you add prefaces to any section dealing with such sensitive subjects. It's really an easy fix, and it would have been nice to get into the history of the document afterward, as ptown said.
I am impressed that they at least took the effort. The constitution should have been heard by all BEFORE they took the oath of office. That way they would have a vague understanding of what their job entailed AND a chance to chicken out
This oath and this reading ( even if it is filled with ceremony, pomp and circumstance) is far more important than the Pledge of Allegiance. -
O-Trap
Thread Bomber;629145 wrote:Yep... The R's don't even know how to read the a document that should be the cornerstone of every thing that they do.
I am impressed that they at least took the effort. The constitution should have been heard by all BEFORE they took the oath of office. That way they would have a vague understanding of what their job entailed AND a chance to chicken out
This oath and this reading ( even if it is filled with ceremony, pomp and circumstance) is far more important than the Pledge of Allegiance.
I wasn't speaking to anyone's intelligence. Only saying that something as simple as that could preempt any suggestion that the original reading was to "support the 3/5 person" part. -
wkfanI'm just very happy that our representatives in Washington are now reading the documents that have a profound effect on the citizens of the United States.
Something new after the last couple of years..... -
fish82
Ouch. Please stop...I beg you. :rolleyes:Bigdogg;628954 wrote:I have scraped better stuff off my shoe then you. -
HitsRus
+2I'm just very happy that our representatives in Washington are now reading the documents that have a profound effect on the citizens of the United States.
Something new after the last couple of years.....
I can't believe some are quibbling about them not launching into a full history lesson.....wouldn't want them wasting too much taxpayer money...LOL -
ptown_trojans_1
HitsRus;629416 wrote:+2
I can't believe some are quibbling about them not launching into a full history lesson.....wouldn't want them wasting too much taxpayer money...LOL
Yeah, I would love for them to do that. It wouldn't be a waste to me at all. -
jmogredfalcon;628742 wrote:Its even funnier to hear the right wing nut jobs claim that they are going to stop the spending when their proposals to cut spending exclude 25 percent of the federal budget, their proposals to cut health care will cost $230 billion over ten years, and that the last time they were in pwer the set record deficits for the time.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0107-healthcare-repeal-20110106,0,4826447.story
Can you PLEASE show proof that repealing Obamacare will cost $230 billion? That's just a rediculous statement.
Making the government "smaller" (aka not grow bigger) will cost money? please you can't be serious. -
ptown_trojans_1
jmog;629520 wrote:Can you PLEASE show proof that repealing Obamacare will cost $230 billion? That's just a rediculous statement.
Making the government "smaller" (aka not grow bigger) will cost money? please you can't be serious.
CBO estimate:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12040 -
jmogptown_trojans_1;629529 wrote:CBO estimate:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12040
Double counting for the win! -
BoatShoesApple;628547 wrote: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.
I think this is a very good analysis Apple. I think it is a good thing to read the constitution at the start of a new Congress. At the same time I think there's an undercurrent that the last Congress did not respect the Constitution when I think it could very well be the case the last Congress, for all of its ineptitude, may have had a different opinion on what the Constitution may allow. -
BoatShoesjmog;629531 wrote:Double counting for the win!
I mean don't you face at least some burden of proof to provide evidence that the CBO is wrong? At least Majorspark provided a link... -
BoatShoesmajorspark;628796 wrote:Some things to note about the congressional budget office. To believe they are non-partisan and are some how devoid of political pressure would be foolish. The director of the CBO is jointly appointed by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
To say that these two highly political figures never let their politics influence their judgment would be ridiculous. To say the CBO is always 100% non-partisan would also be ignorant. They are flawed human beings whose jobs depend on powerful political figures.
As with any government agency there are some good solid people. I am not saying they will never stand up against reckless government spending. At times they have. I am just saying that to believe they are devoid of politics would be naive. They often act as nothing more than a political tool providing cover for the legislature. In the end they have no legislative power and Congress will do as it pleases.
Another thing their projections quite often suck. This article was written when the congressional republicans were fixing to pass an expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug coverage. It reflected on past CBO projections. The article was calling out bullshit on the republicans.
I have posted quotes from it before.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...JlMmU5ZTg5MjI=
In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975. In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.
In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.
The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit—subsequently repealed—from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.
I could be wrong but I think many of those faulty estimates were made by the Congress and perhaps Congressmen with vested interests in getting their legislation passed; Hence, the creation of the CBONear the bottom it suggests, to me at least, that the CBO would have thought those estimates to be different. The CBO is non-partisan (supposedly). I'm not saying the CBO is gospel or anything or free for from the influence of partisan lobbyists but I thought it fair to suggest that projections made by Congress and Congressional committees may be different than that of the CBO...