• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After some wrangling, U.S. Constitution is read in House

TacticalEvilDan

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
After some wrangling, U.S. Constitution is read in House

The House read the U.S. Constitution aloud on Thursday morning - after a brief debate about exactly which parts of the historic document they would be reading.

The chamber's Republican leaders - who organized the first-of-its-kind event - had touted the reading as a way to bring the country back to its political roots. But they didn't want to go all the way back: Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was running the procedure, said lawmakers would read a Constitution that had been edited to remove sections negated by later amendments.
Click to expand...

You mean like the 3/5ths compromise?

So I guess we're getting back to our Constitutional roots, we're just ignoring the parts that are too embarrassing to acknowledge.

Cowards. :lol:


TED,
Who will be pointing to this the next time a right-leaning wingnut talks about revisionism.
 
Reading is more than saying words. You have to understand, comprehend, know context, make judgements. This requries a lot more than just reading out loud.
 
I'm surprised they did not try to slip in the word "god" some where.:2razz:
 
Boo Radley said:
Reading is more than saying words. You have to understand, comprehend, know context, make judgements. This requries a lot more than just reading out loud.
Click to expand...

Reading it aloud is a good start in that direction.

I'm having a hard time imagining why anyone wouldn't want the congress critters reminded of their duties to the Constitution
 
apdst said:
Reading it aloud is a good start in that direction.

I'm having a hard time imagining why anyone wouldn't want the congress critters reminded of their duties to the Constitution
Click to expand...

I don't. I object to people misusing, misreading and in general getting the constitiution wrong. Just read an editorial this weekend on that in the Des Monies Reister, I think, that took to task many of those claiming to be constitutionalists. They got much wrong, and too often do.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You mean like the 3/5ths compromise?

So I guess we're getting back to our Constitutional roots, we're just ignoring the parts that are too embarrassing to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

Quick history lesson for those that love to point this part of the constitution out. The 3/5ths compromise refers to representation in congress. The slave owners wanted full representation of slaves which they considered property. The north countered by saying if your property adds to your representation in congress than we'll count our horses and buggies and all the property we have. The 3/5ths compromise is nothing more than a mechanism to reduce the slave holders role in congress while still maintaining that the slaves are people and deserve representation. Now that oughta heat up this issue, ready, set, discuss!
 
lawmakers would read a Constitution that had been edited to remove sections negated by later amendments.
Click to expand...
People are whining about this? If a section was negated by a later amendment, why does it matter if that section is not read aloud? It would certainly same some time, and allow them to get down to the business at hand.
 
I know that the reading of the Constitution doesn't actually constitute a substantive legislative act.

I'm also familiar with both the text and the meaning of the compromise.

My point is that they're reading the abridged version rather than owning the whole thing on the one hand, while on the other hand pretending like they're doing it to get us back to our Constitutional roots.
 
Zyroh said:
Quick history lesson for those that love to point this part of the constitution out. The 3/5ths compromise refers to representation in congress. The slave owners wanted full representation of slaves which they considered property. The north countered by saying if your property adds to your representation in congress than we'll count our horses and buggies and all the property we have. The 3/5ths compromise is nothing more than a mechanism to reduce the slave holders role in congress while still maintaining that the slaves are people and deserve representation. Now that oughta heat up this issue, ready, set, discuss!
Click to expand...

Thank you. When I saw that post I was hoping someone would reply with something easy to understand. I probably would have failed at it. :)
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I know that the reading of the Constitution doesn't actually constitute a substantive legislative act.

I'm also familiar with both the text and the meaning of the compromise.

My point is that they're reading the abridged version rather than owning the whole thing on the one hand, while on the other hand pretending like they're doing it to get us back to our Constitutional roots.
Click to expand...
i noted that there was an agreement that the Constitution would be read as it is constituted today, with edits being made where changes had resulted, consistent with the Library of Congress' current copy
however, when they read the allocation of congressional representatives they read the original rather than the current number of representatives, causing this to be other than a current version of the Constitution
agreed, that is a minor point with little impact, other than to recognize that those who answered the question about what was to be read answered incorrectly
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
After some wrangling, U.S. Constitution is read in House



You mean like the 3/5ths compromise?

So I guess we're getting back to our Constitutional roots, we're just ignoring the parts that are too embarrassing to acknowledge.

Cowards. :lol:


TED,
Who will be pointing to this the next time a right-leaning wingnut talks about revisionism.
Click to expand...

Only if you are an ignorant fool would the 3/5ths compromise be embarrassing and make an issue of someone not reading what is no longer actually constitutional. I know why you would unintentionally make a fool out of yourself with this partisan wingnut hack thread. Liberals like yourself like to ignore the intentions of our founding forefathers and use the anti-constitutional line "The constitution is a living document" in order to avoid going through the legal constitutional route of adding,removing or restricting rights. So it may have not occurred to you that new amendments can be added to add rights or to restrict rights or to repeal old ones or why they were even originally written in the first place.
 
Its all about show. Republicans love the words of the Constitution but have little respect for what they mean.
 
disneydude said:
Its all about show. Republicans love the words of the Constitution but have little respect for what they mean.
Click to expand...

The Libbos respect what the Constitution means?

How many times have Republicans wanted to ban guns, or ban Rush Limbaugh? "Fairness Doctrine", anyone?
 
apdst said:
The Libbos respect what the Constitution means?

How many times have Republicans wanted to ban guns, or ban Rush Limbaugh? "Fairness Doctrine", anyone?
Click to expand...

Really? When have Democrats or Republicans introduced legislation to ban hand guns? Or Ban Rush Limbaugh.

You are listening to waaay to much of the hysterics coming from your right-wing channels.

As far as the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine didn't try to ban any ideas, exactly the opposite. It was designed to prevent right-wing corporations from buying up all the airwaves and monopolizing the views presented. The idea that the right-wing doesn't or shouldn't own the public airwaves is obviously foreign to you.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Only if you are an ignorant fool would the 3/5ths compromise be embarrassing
Click to expand...

The 3/5ths compromise isn't a portion of our history that embarrasses you? Okay, then!

jamesrage said:
and make an issue of someone not reading what is no longer actually constitutional.
Click to expand...

I get that it's not Constitutional. It's quite obviously not Constitutional. It is, however, a portion of the Constitution and if the point is to remind everybody of what the Constitution says so that we can work our way back to a Constitutional government we shouldn't leave stuff like this out.

jamesrage said:
I know why you would unintentionally make a fool out of yourself with this partisan wingnut hack thread. Liberals like yourself like to ignore the intentions of our founding forefathers and use the anti-constitutional line "The constitution is a living document" in order to avoid going through the legal constitutional route of adding,removing or restricting rights. So it may have not occurred to you that new amendments can be added to add rights or to restrict rights or to repeal old ones or why they were even originally written in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm not a liberal. I've said so many times. That makes you a liar.

I do not, in fact like to ignore the intentions of our forefathers. Hypocrisy aside they had a number of good ideas I'm a really big fan of.

I've got a pretty good understanding of how the Constitution works and why it works that way, I just think if they're going to do a song and dance about getting back to the basics they shouldn't ignore portions of our Constitutional history that they don't like.
 
apdst said:
The Libbos respect what the Constitution means?

How many times have Republicans wanted to ban guns, or ban Rush Limbaugh? "Fairness Doctrine", anyone?
Click to expand...

Both sides have taken many opportunities to strip us of our civil rights.
 
disneydude said:
Really? When have Democrats or Republicans introduced legislation to ban hand guns? Or Ban Rush Limbaugh.

You are listening to waaay to much of the hysterics coming from your right-wing channels.

As far as the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine didn't try to ban any ideas, exactly the opposite. It was designed to prevent right-wing corporations from buying up all the airwaves and monopolizing the views presented. The idea that the right-wing doesn't or shouldn't own the public airwaves is obviously foreign to you.
Click to expand...

The Dems haven't passed any gun bans, nor attempted to pass other, more oppresive gun bans?

Al Sharpton isn't trying to get the FCC to ban Rush Limbaugh?

That's just all nasty rumors, created to smear Democrats?
 
But did they figure out what it cost "the people" to do it? And where did they cut that money from?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
In your opinion.

In fact, both sides do it whenever it suits their goals, and that's all I care about. Neither side has a particularly good record on protecting our civil rights.
Click to expand...

That's not opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom