• 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

I don't know of any hard stats on the subject, and at any rate the "protection" or "stripping" of civil rights is, unfortunately, a subjective evaluation. There is no metric I'm aware of that would allow you to make a statement like, "Well, over the last 10 years the Republicans decreased our freedoms 2.4%, but those lousy Democrats have decreased them 50%!"

So, yeah, it's opinion and not fact.
 
I don't know of any hard stats on the subject, and at any rate the "protection" or "stripping" of civil rights is, unfortunately, a subjective evaluation. There is no metric I'm aware of that would allow you to make a statement like, "Well, over the last 10 years the Republicans decreased our freedoms 2.4%, but those lousy Democrats have decreased them 50%!"

So, yeah, it's opinion and not fact.

You hope there's not, so you don't wind up looking like a fool in front of the whole forum.
 
You know that there isn't, or otherwise you would've presented it.

Feel free to give up the posturing any time now, seeing as how it is completely without any factual basis whatsoever.
 
You know that there isn't, or otherwise you would've presented it.

Feel free to give up the posturing any time now, seeing as how it is completely without any factual basis whatsoever.

Who passed Jim Crow laws?
 
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.

Because the goal of reading it aloud was to get back to th eroots. Editting out the less than stellar parts of our history is ignoring a portion of our legislative roots.
 
Explain to me why we don't require Congress to read the Constitution aloud in chambers EVERY year.

They should have to take a test on it. More than half would fail miserably.
 
Who passed Jim Crow laws?

Who is trying to distract me from the fact that there is no metric that would allow you to make a statement like, "Well, over the last 10 years the Republicans decreased our freedoms 2.4%, but those lousy Democrats have decreased them 50%!"
 
Explain to me why we don't require Congress to read the Constitution aloud in chambers EVERY year.

They should have to take a test on it. More than half would fail miserably.

particularly that part about only congress can declare war.
 
Explain to me why we don't require Congress to read the Constitution aloud in chambers EVERY year.

For the same reason why we don't require them to recite The Golden Rule or read from "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" -- because it would be an empty gesture.
 
Because the goal of reading it aloud was to get back to th eroots. Editting out the less than stellar parts of our history is ignoring a portion of our legislative roots.

Why read parts of the Constitution that are no longer legal parts of the Constitution?
 
As a reminder of where we came from, since the idea is to bring the government back to its Constitutional roots.
 
Because the goal of reading it aloud was to get back to th eroots. Editting out the less than stellar parts of our history is ignoring a portion of our legislative roots.

I thought the point was to say 'here is the Constitution... here's what is Constitutional... please stick within the confines of this document when making legislation'. Seems silly to 'require' them to cover parts that are no longer 'Constitutional'.
 
I thought the point was to say 'here is the Constitution... here's what is Constitutional... please stick within the confines of this document when making legislation'. Seems silly to 'require' them to cover parts that are no longer 'Constitutional'.

A lot of people act like if it's an idea the founders had, or if it's in the Constitution, it's the most awesome thing ever.

Reminders that the founders weren't perfect and neither is the Constitution are a good thing.
 
I thought the point was to say 'here is the Constitution... here's what is Constitutional... please stick within the confines of this document when making legislation'. Seems silly to 'require' them to cover parts that are no longer 'Constitutional'.

According to th earticle, it was:

The chamber's Republican leaders... had touted the reading as a way to bring the country back to its political roots.

If that was the goal, the entire document should have been read wihtout any editting.

Ignoring the negative aspects of our roots is folly.
 
The 3/5ths compromise isn't a portion of our history that embarrasses you? Okay, then!

So you think it was okay for slave owning states to use their slaves to get more representation? The South was lucky they even got that. Seeing how they didn't consider their slaves people enough to deserve legal protection they shouldn't have been able to use their slaves to get any extra representation.


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.

If it is not valid then what is the point of reading it? Was the 13th amendment repealed?


I'm not a liberal. I've said so many times. That makes you a liar.
It is quacks like a duck,acts like a duck then perhaps it is a duck.

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.


This is just a piss poor attempt of yours to mock and bash republicans and nothing more. Its like calling the chief of police a hypocrite for not enforcing a no spitting on the sidewalk law that was repealed.
 
So you think it was okay for slave owning states to use their slaves to get more representation? The South was lucky they even got that. Seeing how they didn't consider their slaves people enough to deserve legal protection they shouldn't have been able to use their slaves to get any extra representation.

Noooooooooo, I think slavery was bad and should not have been codified in the Constitution. I understand why it was, but it's still embarrassing. We should keep that embarrassment in mind.

If it is not valid then what is the point of reading it? Was the 13th amendment repealed?

Answered multiple times elsewhere in this thread.

This is just a piss poor attempt of yours to mock and bash republicans and nothing more. Its like calling the chief of police a hypocrite for not enforcing a no spitting on the sidewalk law that was repealed.

It's not exactly piss-poor, and if the Democrats had pulled this stunt I would've given them exactly the same treatment.
 
Last edited:
I thought the point was to say 'here is the Constitution... here's what is Constitutional... please stick within the confines of this document when making legislation'. Seems silly to 'require' them to cover parts that are no longer 'Constitutional'.

It's good to remember our mistakes, otherwise we repeat them over and over:

18th amendment: After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
 
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?

No...contrary to right-wing propoganda.....the Democrats are not trying to take your guns.....you can stop the hysteria

As for Rush Limbaugh....are you really that paranoid that your idol might be taken off the air? Trust me......I don't know about Al Sharpton....but Al sharpton doesn't control the Democratic party and isn't going to get your favorite right-wing propoganda off the air.

Take a deep breath....its all going to be ok.
 
I don't see a down side?

Tim-
 
Explain to me why we don't require Congress to read the Constitution aloud in chambers EVERY year.

They should have to take a test on it. More than half would fail miserably.

Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus are going to study it and one of Supreme Court Justices is going to give classes.
 
I don't see a down side?

Tim-

Me neither. Getting back to our political grass roots doesn't have to mean remembering all the things that are today acknowledged as bad. Getting to our political grass roots can easily mean getting back to the type of politics that this country was founded on. Honest debate and what is right. After all isn't that what this country was founded on? What is right?
 
Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus are going to study it and one of Supreme Court Justices is going to give classes.

God....please, please please don't let it be Scalia....or Thomas the Supreme Court midget.
 
Back
Top Bottom