Posted on 01/07/2011 3:31:41 AM PST by Scanian
The Constitution was read at the opening of the new session of the House of Representatives yesterday. What was most remarkable about this was the almost hysterical opposition from congressional Democrats and left-wing commentators. In what should have been a united celebration of the nation's foundation document in a period of partisan rancor, liberals instead reinforced the view that they are profoundly uncomfortable with the essential truths underlying American freedom.
Some leftists smugly observed that the literal reading of the document does not convey its full meaning, which has been defined, redefined and sometimes misdefined by successive generations of courts. This argument fit neatly into liberal talking points about the new congressional majority being composed of naive bumpkins who know little of the sophisticated workings of government. Yet Washington's corrupting climate is the very basis of the conservative critique.
The country has strayed far from the artful simplicity of our original founding document. Congress, the executive and the courts all assume powers they never were intended to have. The most recent Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause - which simply was supposed to prevent states from throwing up internal tariff barriers - to give government the right to compel Americans to spend private monies on health insurance. If this power stands, there truly are no limits to the power of the bureaucratic leviathan.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I'm expecting some serious Climate Change in DC. Otherwise, real Americans will not be happy.
Unless there is an equal -if not greater change in the US Senate (As seen in the House last Nov) I can’t imagine the serious change you speak of. IMO our system has been neglected to the point where we are no longer the Constitutional
Democratic Republic established -but have slid into tyranny. The Courts have ignored the Constitution with impunity and resist any return . The 9th Circuit war on Memorials that include Christian symbolism (Mojave Cross Memorial that stood with no legal challenge since 1934 until recently -now the Mt.Soledad Memorial.The attitude in the House and Senate -most clearly seen among “progressives” or the so called “moderates” is no better.
The pubbies didn’t distinguish themselves yesterday by editing out certain portions of the Constitution for PC purposes.
YES! the Leftist Socialist Democrats are head shaking unbelievably unAmerican when it comes to that piece of paper written by old dead white guys some two hundred years plus in the past. It doesn’t address the World the Leftists of today envision.
Did I say “World”?
I assumed (foolishly) that they would do it right and didn't watch. If they edited out portions that have been superseded [see highlighted passages on "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"; Senators from each state "chosen by the Legislature"; the date Congress shall meet will "be on the first Monday in December"; no direct tax "unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken"; presidential electors and succession (too long to quote); escaped slaves "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due"; etc], I'm okay with that, since those passages are no longer in effect. Otherwise, that's a problem. What did they remove?
The 3/5ths of a person rule is what I noticed.
What the fools don’t understand is that the 3/5ths rule was made in order to limit the power of the slave states in the Congress. It was not done to belittle blacks-—it was just the opposite. The slave states wanted slaves counted as a full person.
But historical ignorance is prevalent even among conservatives and we got a performance like yesterday’s as a result.
Yes, and circumventing the intent of that document is a full time job for liberals, including all their efforts to stack the courts and encourage judicial activism and judicial reinterpretation of the Constitution.
..or as Rush said, equivalent to water-boading them.
How long did it take to read the Constitution - about an hour? - How long did Nancy Pelosi’s speech the other day take - about ten minutes?
Well, if Pelosi’s speech took ONE-SIXTH of the time that reading the Constitution took, what’s the deal? - Not to mention the hours of speechifying that she’s done in total in the years she’s been there not being worth one word of the Constitution.
It's not the decision I would have made, but I'm okay with their choice. The point of the reading was supposed to be that they would govern under the "supreme law of the land". Since that passage no longer legally has effect as part of that supreme law, their choice isn't a terrible one. It's a gesture toward PC, but it's also one made under a valid interpretation of what is still in effect within the Constitution. I will withhold judgment until I see how they spend our money.
The Constitution is the foundation of Law. If the Liberals can get rid of the Constitution they can get rid of ‘The Rule of Law’ altogether and move us into a direct dictatorship.
This is demonstrated very well by Eric (the Law is whatever I say it is) Holder.
Not only was the move PC, it pandered to historical ignorance.
“How long did it take to read the Constitution...?”
85 minutes is what I heard reported on Fox News.
Liberals do not distaste the Constitution for any reason than they see it as an impediment to their agenda.
Liberals view conservative speech the same way and would eliminate all of it, if they could.
Liberals simply believe there should be no limit on their power.
They think “I won.” is supposed to mean “Now I can do any damned thing I want.”
Did any congress critters, of either stripe, walk out, doze off, or otherwise totally ignore the procedings?
Thank you for not letting me down.
If we aren’t going to be “principled conservatives” here, who will be?
Are you suggesting that reading the Constitution according to the gospel of political correctness was just Jim Dandy with you?
The GOP has total power in the House. They could have found somebody from a “safe” district to read the so-called “controversial” parts and not give in to historical ignorance and PC. There has to be somebody with a pair in that caucus.
Demand little, you’ll get little.
I’m not unhappy with the first few days of the new House but the Constitution editing was not the high point!
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.