• 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

apdst said:
When you look at the track record of the congress critters that are leaving, I think there's a huge improvement; by their absence, if for no other reason.
Click to expand...

Perosnally, I'll withold judgment on whether or not it's an improvement until they actually do something that shows it is an improvement. Addition by substraction only occurs when that which is added doesn't regress to the mean.
 
Tucker Case said:
Perosnally, I'll withold judgment on whether or not it's an improvement until they actually do something that shows it is an improvement. Addition by substraction only occurs when that which is added doesn't regress to the mean.
Click to expand...

The fewer congress critters that think they--not the people--can fix everything that's wrong with the country is a vast improvement. I agree that only time will tell, but I'm more optimistic than I was a year ago. The Reps have already gone after over-regulation by the EPA. That's a good sign, to me.
 
Tucker Case said:
There is value in showing the parts that are no longer applicable in this context is to show that there is a clear and defined method for overturning aspects of the constitution, and governing from a constitutionally sound basis isn't something set in stone.

By purposefully removing the parts that are no longer applicable, one is presneting things as though everything that is currently applicable must always remain so.

That is a misrepresentation of what is constitutionally sound.
Click to expand...

Only true if you're also leaving out the portion of the constitution that details the process in which such things have been overturned or removed
 
Tucker Case said:
Good point.
Click to expand...

I get your point Tuck, and I don't think there would be any harm in reading those sections. I don't think there's any harm in NOT reading them either. To me it just seems like a silly thing to be arguing about or try to make hay out of. I don't think there's any devious attempts to revisitionist history here, or underhanded motives of wanting to somehow white wash over embaressment, or other such stuff. I can understand thinking the notion, as a whole, is stupid or useless or hollow even if I may not fully agree. But that is an entirely seperate issue. I just don't see the big rally against the republicans point in this.
 
Zyphlin said:
To me it just seems like a silly thing to be arguing about or try to make hay out of.
Click to expand...

It is, to me, only something to make hay out of because they tried to make hay out of the reading of the Constitution to begin with.

Zyphlin said:
I can understand thinking the notion, as a whole, is stupid or useless or hollow even if I may not fully agree. But that is an entirely seperate issue. I just don't see the big rally against the republicans point in this.
Click to expand...

I do think that the notion, as a whole, is stupid and useless and hollow. My argument is that if you're going to trumpet such behavior and then turn around at the last minute and do it half-way, that's even worse than the original useless, hollow stupidity.
 
Zyphlin said:
I get your point Tuck, and I don't think there would be any harm in reading those sections. I don't think there's any harm in NOT reading them either. To me it just seems like a silly thing to be arguing about or try to make hay out of. I don't think there's any devious attempts to revisitionist history here, or underhanded motives of wanting to somehow white wash over embaressment, or other such stuff. I can understand thinking the notion, as a whole, is stupid or useless or hollow even if I may not fully agree. But that is an entirely seperate issue. I just don't see the big rally against the republicans point in this.
Click to expand...

I think my problem with not reading them is that it seems like it is trying to sweep our less savory history under the carpet.

After thinking about it, this is somewhat emotional reasoning on my part, and looking back at my comments in light of your pointing out the obvious to me in post #105, however, I realize that I was trying to use the ammendment process argument to justify my distaste for the appearance of sweeping our les savory history under the carpet.

I still find it distasteful to remove those portions from the reading, but I don't have a very strong argumetn for why it is distasteful to me other than the way it appears to me.
 
Zyphlin said:
I get your point Tuck, and I don't think there would be any harm in reading those sections. I don't think there's any harm in NOT reading them either. To me it just seems like a silly thing to be arguing about or try to make hay out of. I don't think there's any devious attempts to revisitionist history here, or underhanded motives of wanting to somehow white wash over embaressment, or other such stuff. I can understand thinking the notion, as a whole, is stupid or useless or hollow even if I may not fully agree. But that is an entirely seperate issue. I just don't see the big rally against the republicans point in this.
Click to expand...

The embarassment of the 3/5 clause? Nothing to be embarassed about.

In Retrospect: The 3/5ths Clause of the Constitution | Redstate
Not many people who huff and puff and level the accusing finger at the nation's founders about it seem to be aware that the Slave States' representatives at the Constitutional Convention were the ones demanding that slaves be counted as full persons, while the Free states' spokesmen were the ones demanding that they not be counted at all.
In other words, it was the Free States that forced the 3/5ths Clause unto the Constitution of the United States - which may lead us to ask, just who were the good guys here? The guys who wanted to count slaves as full people or those who didn't want to count them at all?
Well, the latter.
Slavery in America may well have lasted well into the 20th Century if the Slave States have had their way in Philadelphia, and it probably would have ended well before the 1860s if the Free States had won entirely and a slave had counted for 0% of a human being.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It is, to me, only something to make hay out of because they tried to make hay out of the reading of the Constitution to begin with.
Click to expand...

Which they are doing. But you're not complaining about them doing that, you're complaining that they're not doing it in the way you WANT, and thus are making a giant deal out of it by refusing to alow yourself to even VENTURE into any other possible avenues of thought as to what their intentions and sattements may've meant.

I do think that the notion, as a whole, is stupid and useless and hollow. My argument is that if you're going to trumpet such behavior and then turn around at the last minute and do it half-way, that's even worse than the original useless, hollow stupidity.
Click to expand...

They're not doing it "half way", they're doing it in a way that makes sense in the scope of why they're doing it. They're doing it to remind people what the Constitution says with regards to their jobs as the legislation so that they can hopefully instill a desire to return to practicing constitutional legislative processes...something thing, rightly or wrongly, feel has been lacking.

With that as the point, there's little purpose in including portions of the constitution that have absolutely no baring on legislating constitutionally because they aren't constitutional provisions any longer. Again, if their goal was simply to give people a history lesson of the Constitution you'd be right...but that was not their stated goal. However, YOU dislike the process and dislike how they're doing it, so you ignore thier own words and reality and instead assume there is only one possible way they could've meant or believed their statement to be and that only YOUR interpritation of how that could be met is capable of being the "non half-way" method of doing it.
 
Tucker Case said:
I think my problem with not reading them is that it seems like it is trying to sweep our less savory history under the carpet.

After thinking about it, this is somewhat emotional reasoning on my part, and looking back at my comments in light of your pointing out the obvious to me in post #105, however, I realize that I was trying to use the ammendment process argument to justify my distaste for the appearance of sweeping our les savory history under the carpet.

I still find it distasteful to remove those portions from the reading, but I don't have a very strong argumetn for why it is distasteful to me other than the way it appears to me.
Click to expand...

I can see how that's distasteful. I can even see how someone could look at this and think that may be what they are attempting to do at first glance. What I have issues with is people who don't just think that it may be, but act and make statements as if its unquestionably what they're doing and that they're doing it for immoral or unethical or unsavory reasons. Which, thankfully, it seems you've at least accepted that while it may appear one way to you, that it is not a definite and is based off nothing but your appearance from your own view of it rather than any actual statements or even additional action on the part of those doing it.
 
The democrats are showing why they are as clueless and classless as Palin.

The appropriate response to this would have been a simple..."we agree...great idea...go!!!" Instead they get into these mindless idiotic arguments about why...which version (as if they havent been governing by the current version for the last four years). Its just ****ing stoopid.
 
VanceMack said:
The democrats are showing why they are as clueless and classless as Palin.

The appropriate response to this would have been a simple..."we agree...great idea...go!!!" Instead they get into these mindless idiotic arguments about why...which version (as if they havent been governing by the current version for the last four years). Its just ****ing stoopid.
Click to expand...

this.... in spades.
 
VanceMack said:
The democrats are showing why they are as clueless and classless as Palin.

The appropriate response to this would have been a simple..."we agree...great idea...go!!!" Instead they get into these mindless idiotic arguments about why...which version (as if they havent been governing by the current version for the last four years). Its just ****ing stoopid.
Click to expand...

Who didn't see that coming?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Thank you for this thought-provoking contribution. I can't imagine how the discussion took place without your wit here to put everything in perspective.
Click to expand...

Look at what you're all talking about... Teabaggers posturing for their dimwitted voters.

Nothing's going to change, a minor shift in power. Last time this happened, the GOP only proved themselves all too easily corrupted.

The far-righties forget that their hero Newtie was fined something like $300K and ended up stepping down in shame... And then came the 'Hammer'??

It's sickening watching ex-lobbyists and car salesmen voted into office via a corporate funded power-grab (the Tea Party) read something they'll wipe their ass with over the next two years.

Stop kidding yourselves...
 
Zyphlin said:
Which they are doing. But you're not complaining about them doing that, you're complaining that they're not doing it in the way you WANT
Click to expand...

No, I'm pointing out the fact that they're not doing what they said they were going to do.

Zyphlin said:
They're not doing it "half way", they're doing it in a way that makes sense in the scope of why they're doing it. They're doing it to remind people what the Constitution says with regards to their jobs as the legislation so that they can hopefully instill a desire to return to practicing constitutional legislative processes...something thing, rightly or wrongly, feel has been lacking.
Click to expand...

If they were doing it to remind people what the Constitution says with regards to their jobs, then they would've stuck to the parts that actually defined the scope of their authority. Instead they made a big deal out of reading the whole thing -- and then didn't.

This isn't about my interpretation of anything -- they said they were going to do a very specific thing, and then they failed to do so.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, I'm pointing out the fact that they're not doing what they said they were going to do.
Click to expand...

Really? They stated they would read every line of the constitution verbatim, or did they say they'd read the constitution? Are they not reading the constitution? Am I missing something and they're standing up there quoting Tolkien? Because if so, then I get your point completely.

If they were doing it to remind people what the Constitution says with regards to their jobs, then they would've stuck to the parts that actually defined the scope of their authority. Instead they made a big deal out of reading the whole thing -- and then didn't.
Click to expand...

Actually, you'd read the part that deals with the scope of their jobs and the scope of the jobs of other branches, to firmly establish what is your responsability and what is specifically laid out as OTHER peoples responsabilities. One of the issues Republicans have been having is over reaching of the Congress, and by showing clearly what is their and what isn't theirs that addresses that.

However, reading stuff that doesn't apply, in any way, anymore doesn't address that issue at all.

This isn't about my interpretation of anything -- they said they were going to do a very specific thing, and then they failed to do so.[/QUOTE]
 
Zyphlin said:
Really? They stated they would read every line of the constitution verbatim, or did they say they'd read the constitution? Are they not reading the constitution? Am I missing something and they're standing up there quoting Tolkien? Because if so, then I get your point completely.
Click to expand...

Oh, for crying out loud... When you say you're going to read something, that means you're going to read it from start to finish, not that you're going to read selectively. I remember hearing the words, "A reading from the book of" every Sunday for a long, long time for that very reason.

If they'd said they were going to read from portions of the Constitution, or that they were going to read selected passages, or read from the Constitution as it pertains to the House of Representatives, this thread would not exist.

So, like I said:

TacticalEvilDan said:
This isn't about my interpretation of anything -- they said they were going to do a very specific thing, and then they failed to do so.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
I can see how that's distasteful. I can even see how someone could look at this and think that may be what they are attempting to do at first glance. What I have issues with is people who don't just think that it may be, but act and make statements as if its unquestionably what they're doing and that they're doing it for immoral or unethical or unsavory reasons. Which, thankfully, it seems you've at least accepted that while it may appear one way to you, that it is not a definite and is based off nothing but your appearance from your own view of it rather than any actual statements or even additional action on the part of those doing it.
Click to expand...

I'm all for getting back ot the legislative roots, and I'd also be inclined to add even more than just reading the Constitution (I think both parties would be better served if they reaquanted themselves with teh Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, especially).

Omitting portions just seems wrong to me, even if they are no longer applicable. I'v ebeen thinking more about it, and I can present a better case for why it bothers me now.

The ommitted portions still have historical value as far as our legislative roots go. The 3/5ths compromise is a great example of how compromise between two totally opposed groups has been the norm, not the exception, for example. Even when the "compromise" is one that was very contentious topic at the time.

But it's not just the 3/5ths compromise part that should be included in the reading.

For example, the 17th ammendment superceded article 1, section 3, clause 1. This is a very important clause with regard to our legislative roots and the 17th is an example of us moving towards a different style of government than what we originally had (state sovereingty vs. greater centralization). But the 17th was adopted as a response to corruption (something that is also quite important to "remember").

As a person who's beliefs are anti-federalist in nature, removing portions like that is like removing my prefered positions from consideration. It's not like we can't return to the less centralized system of government we originally had.

I believe that this context is of immense value when discussing our legislative roots and constitutionality.
 
Barbbtx said:
The embarassment of the 3/5 clause? Nothing to be embarassed about.

In Retrospect: The 3/5ths Clause of the Constitution | Redstate
Not many people who huff and puff and level the accusing finger at the nation's founders about it seem to be aware that the Slave States' representatives at the Constitutional Convention were the ones demanding that slaves be counted as full persons, while the Free states' spokesmen were the ones demanding that they not be counted at all.
In other words, it was the Free States that forced the 3/5ths Clause unto the Constitution of the United States - which may lead us to ask, just who were the good guys here? The guys who wanted to count slaves as full people or those who didn't want to count them at all?
Well, the latter.
Slavery in America may well have lasted well into the 20th Century if the Slave States have had their way in Philadelphia, and it probably would have ended well before the 1860s if the Free States had won entirely and a slave had counted for 0% of a human being.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It wasn't the slave owners that wanted them counted as 3/5ths. It was the free states.
 
apdst said:
Vermont (1777), Pennsylvania (1780), Massachuesets (1783), New Hampshire (1783), Rhode Island (1784), Connecticut (1784), had all banned slavery by the time the 3/5 Comprimise was written.
Click to expand...

Careful...dont threaten the mythology...their heads will explode.
 
VanceMack said:
Careful...dont threaten the mythology...their heads will explode.
Click to expand...

I live to slap Libbos in the face with historical facts. It makes my day, man, it really does...:rofl

It never ceases to amaze how people that claim to be so much smarter and more knowledgable than the rest of us, don't know jack **** about actual history.

Think I oughta tell them that the reason slavery was banned in those states, was because of the religious right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom