Posted on 01/09/2015 8:46:34 AM PST by MosesKnows
I just listened to members of the House read the entire United States Constitution aloud on the floor of the House. This is the third Congress to follow this tradition.
However, as before, the Congress failed to read Article 1. Section 1. in its entirety. That begs the question, why did the Congress intentionally omitted reading this language in the Constitution.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
They did read the 14th Amendment, which modified that portion of Article 1. Section 1.
They also read Article 1, Section 9, No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken, and the
16th Amendment, which modified Article 1. Section 9, The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
They also omitted reading the Preamble to the Constitution. The preamble was not ratified so there is justification to omit it. However, the Congress did read the preamble to the Bill of Rights the first time they read the Constitution. That begs another question, why did the 112th Congress read it and the 114th Congress omit it?
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
There are two more short procedural sections but this was the meat of it. Does not "declaratory and restrictive" make the intentions of the Bill of Rights clear? Now the Government's role and my role as citizen both seem clear. As long as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are intact, I will remain a citizen and not a subject.
IOW, they only played at reading it.
Because that section was rescinded with the passing of the amendments (I think 13 or 14.)
That means, when reading the Constitution, you can and should literally skip that portion.
The Preamble is not part of the Constitution, just as a forward to a book is not part of the book.
OK. Now can they follow it?
I did not know the Preamble had not been ratified. That being the case, seems to me the “general welfare “”clause”” has no legal standing and all statutes based upon it, including court decisions are null and void.
“Promote the general welfare” is an absolutely fine idea. It simply means broad brush, create a society where people prosper. There is not a need to avoid the phrase.
And it does not mean provide the livelihood to individuals.
Promote general welfare means, have a functioning court system. Establish money. Protect rights.
That is all it ever meant until the socialists came in
That was my mistake.
The Preamble to the Constitution was ratified and the 114th Congress read it.
I was referring to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which was not ratified.
I defy you to find a copy of the Constitution that does not include the language before the amendment and the amendment; else, how you would know what was amended.
Too bad, I had hoped we had stumbled onto the path to castrate the imperial federal apparatus.
When were amendments 9 & 10 rescinded?
Did they read all of Art. II, Sect. 1?
So they read the Constitution. A lot of people read the Bible. That doesn’t mean they follow it.
““Promote the general welfare” is an absolutely fine idea. It simply means broad brush, create a society where people prosper.”
“general welfare” is another translation of the res publica: the public riches, the common wealth, the common good, the public good, the general good.
Therefore, the meaning of the clause is that one of the reasons “We the People” ordained the Constitution, was to promote good, or welfare, of all, of the public.
“I defy you to find a copy of the Constitution that does not include the language before the amendment and the amendment; else, how you would know what was amended.”
I’ve seen Constitution copies where the amended sections are in brackets, or italics. So they just skip over those sections, and the amendments fill in those gaps.
Is it not crossed out? Does it usually not indicate that it was rescinded?
That means, when reading it, that it is no longer valid.
So, if you are reading aloud it means to skip it. I am referring to the process of public speaking, not the written document.
It’s not really worth discussing, as you and I will not agree about the process. But in terms of giving a proper speech, they did it correctly. Whether or not you like it is a matter of opinion.
Where did I suggest they were?
Oh, you didn’t, but it seems that all the people who get to the federal level seem to think they’ve been repealed.
Ok. I understand.
They read this aloud like it means anything to them.
And this afternoon the emails go out trying to get $5 and $10 from the Red White and Blue citizens.
But tonight, the oligarchs will throw them a “time” and shovel bags of cash to them
Having these clowns reading the Constitution is more insulting than inspiring.
"The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." - Wikipedia
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.