Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The House of Representatives will read out loud a *politically correct* version of the Constitution to start the year. Omitted: Slavery, Prohibition and that rare first draft with the word "suckers" in it   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, U.S. House, organizations, Library of Congress  
•       •       •

1359 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jan 2013 at 8:48 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-15 08:38:00 AM  
Didn't they already do this once?
 
2013-01-15 08:49:46 AM  
Will they add a reference to Jebus?
 
2013-01-15 08:53:32 AM  

DamnYankees: Didn't they already do this once?


2010

Whatever happened to Michele Bachmann's Monday Morning Constitutional Tutorials she was going to have? Was the first one with Scalia that much of a bust that she started playing with some other bright shiny thing instead?
 
2013-01-15 08:55:07 AM  
This gonna create sooooo many jobs.
 
2013-01-15 08:58:39 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Will they add a reference to Jebus?


I'm sure they will mention the author.

www.comicmix.com
 
2013-01-15 09:00:56 AM  
There are more than 200 years of of interpretation and law that give the constition context in regards to modern law. Reading the Constitution without that context isn't really meaningful.
 
2013-01-15 09:01:25 AM  
They plan to read the second amendment 500 times, while slowly pounding the floor with the butts of flintlocks.
 
2013-01-15 09:02:14 AM  

DamnYankees: Didn't they already do this once?


FTFA: When this first happened in 2011, in the aftermath of the tea party's win in the 2010 midterm elections, the 84-minute ceremony was preceded by bickering and followed by public criticism....

Yup.

/have they created any jobs yet?
 
2013-01-15 09:02:48 AM  
Followed immediately by the reading of the articles of impeachment.
 
2013-01-15 09:06:34 AM  
So it IS a living document?
 
2013-01-15 09:09:07 AM  
On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.
 
2013-01-15 09:09:47 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Tyrone Slothrop: Will they add a reference to Jebus?

I'm sure they will mention the author.

[www.comicmix.com image 600x408]


Look all those white people!
 
2013-01-15 09:10:13 AM  
Omitted: Slavery
img.timeinc.net
"BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

/not exclusive to Joe Wilson, most representatives below the Manson-Dixon Line
 
2013-01-15 09:10:59 AM  
So they're back fighting the whole politically correct thing. It's like the 90's all over again. I remember how edgy and hip the right was when they were whining about this is 1993
 
2013-01-15 09:12:17 AM  

Cythraul: Look all those w White people!

 
2013-01-15 09:24:20 AM  

delathi: On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.


Because

1) It shows that the Constitution is an imperfect document, that the Founders didn't get everything right.

2) That has to be amended from time-to-time because the nation is always evolving (it's not 1787 anymore); and

3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,
 
2013-01-15 09:29:03 AM  

thornhill: delathi: On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.

Because

1) It shows that the Constitution is an imperfect document, that the Founders didn't get everything right.

2) That has to be amended from time-to-time because the nation is always evolving (it's not 1787 anymore); and

3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,


That would be quite lovely in a History or Political Science class.. or wholly appropriate for a discussion on the merits and flaws of our system of government. But if you are reading the Law of the Land, I do not see the point to reading extra junk that isn't the law anymore.

When posting speed limit signs, they don't also post every previous speed limit the road has had as a cautionary illustration on safety and revenue streams.
 
2013-01-15 09:32:24 AM  

thornhill: 3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,


Ohh, I don't know. I think writing in the social policy that you cannot own other human beings as property was a pretty good idea.
 
2013-01-15 09:37:43 AM  

delathi: thornhill: delathi: On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.

Because

1) It shows that the Constitution is an imperfect document, that the Founders didn't get everything right.

2) That has to be amended from time-to-time because the nation is always evolving (it's not 1787 anymore); and

3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,

That would be quite lovely in a History or Political Science class.. or wholly appropriate for a discussion on the merits and flaws of our system of government. But if you are reading the Law of the Land, I do not see the point to reading extra junk that isn't the law anymore.

When posting speed limit signs, they don't also post every previous speed limit the road has had as a cautionary illustration on safety and revenue streams.


So our lawmakers should never engage in any kind of thinking about the flaws of our system of government?
 
2013-01-15 09:39:39 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: thornhill: 3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,

Ohh, I don't know. I think writing in the social policy that you cannot own other human beings as property was a pretty good idea.


Slavery is not "social policy" -- it's a human rights issue, like cruel and unusual punishment.

Social policy is about trying to influence and control behavior, such as Prohibition.
 
2013-01-15 09:47:53 AM  

thornhill: delathi: thornhill: delathi: On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.

Because

1) It shows that the Constitution is an imperfect document, that the Founders didn't get everything right.

2) That has to be amended from time-to-time because the nation is always evolving (it's not 1787 anymore); and

3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,

That would be quite lovely in a History or Political Science class.. or wholly appropriate for a discussion on the merits and flaws of our system of government. But if you are reading the Law of the Land, I do not see the point to reading extra junk that isn't the law anymore.

When posting speed limit signs, they don't also post every previous speed limit the road has had as a cautionary illustration on safety and revenue streams.

So our lawmakers should never engage in any kind of thinking about the flaws of our system of government?


Who said that?
I'm just pointing out that if it is your intention to read the Constitution as the Law of the Land, as a ceremonial opening to a session of Congress, then you should read what is actually the law and not the extraneous cast offs.

If it is your intention to read the Constitution as a matter of study or history, then it is absolutely necessary to include the edits and the history of the document.

This silly stunt by Boehner seems, to me, to fall clearly into the first, not the second.
 
2013-01-15 09:51:57 AM  

thornhill: Philip Francis Queeg: thornhill: 3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,

Ohh, I don't know. I think writing in the social policy that you cannot own other human beings as property was a pretty good idea.

Slavery is not "social policy" -- it's a human rights issue, like cruel and unusual punishment.

Social policy is about trying to influence and control behavior, such as Prohibition.


It could just be me but I think the fact that we're arguing about this illustrates this point rather nicely: at the time slavery was, if not universally at least widely, regarded as perfectly reasonable economic policy. Today it's regarded as a terribly human rights abuse. Demonstrating rather handily that any set of laws needs to be a "living document" in order to continue to function in the face of new learning and human advancement.

/TL;DR: The only constant is change, and that it was conservatives (the real ones) will always lose eventually. Intelligent conservatives know this and simply try to lose in the most widely acceptable manner.
 
2013-01-15 09:53:14 AM  
//*and that is why*
///HAHA! Slashies
 
2013-01-15 10:02:41 AM  

delathi: thornhill: delathi: thornhill: delathi: On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.

Because

1) It shows that the Constitution is an imperfect document, that the Founders didn't get everything right.

2) That has to be amended from time-to-time because the nation is always evolving (it's not 1787 anymore); and

3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,

That would be quite lovely in a History or Political Science class.. or wholly appropriate for a discussion on the merits and flaws of our system of government. But if you are reading the Law of the Land, I do not see the point to reading extra junk that isn't the law anymore.

When posting speed limit signs, they don't also post every previous speed limit the road has had as a cautionary illustration on safety and revenue streams.

So our lawmakers should never engage in any kind of thinking about the flaws of our system of government?

Who said that?
I'm just pointing out that if it is your intention to read the Constitution as the Law of the Land, as a ceremonial opening to a session of Congress, then you should read what is actually the law and not the extraneous cast offs.

If it is your intention to read the Constitution as a matter of study or history, then it is absolutely necessary to include the edits and the history of the document.

This silly stunt by Boehner seems, to me, to fall clearly into the first, not the second.


You're totally missing the point.

The purpose of this reading is to reaffirm the Tea Party belief that we've strayed from what the Founding Fathers wanted, that the Constitution as written in 1787 is perfect, that it should be interpreted as literally as possible, that despite it being 2013 we should be trying to conform to it as much as possible, etc.

The fact that they are scrubbing it reveals: 1) That their argument is flawed; and 2) Their hypocrisy.

And would it be so wrong for a reading to include all of the nasty parts that people want to forget so that we could have a national conversation about the need to update the constitution from time to time? Apparently you think if it's in the name of ceremony and pomp we should just pretend that American history is 100% vanilla.
 
2013-01-15 10:05:29 AM  

actualhuman: thornhill: Philip Francis Queeg: thornhill: 3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,

Ohh, I don't know. I think writing in the social policy that you cannot own other human beings as property was a pretty good idea.

Slavery is not "social policy" -- it's a human rights issue, like cruel and unusual punishment.

Social policy is about trying to influence and control behavior, such as Prohibition.

It could just be me but I think the fact that we're arguing about this illustrates this point rather nicely: at the time slavery was, if not universally at least widely, regarded as perfectly reasonable economic policy. Today it's regarded as a terribly human rights abuse. Demonstrating rather handily that any set of laws needs to be a "living document" in order to continue to function in the face of new learning and human advancement.

/TL;DR: The only constant is change, and that it was conservatives (the real ones) will always lose eventually. Intelligent conservatives know this and simply try to lose in the most widely acceptable manner.


Not to quibble, but human rights were recognized at the time as a right; what was not recognized was equal rights (which still isn't). Blacks were not seen as deserving of human rights, and unless you were a white adult male landowner, you were disenfranchised in some way.
 
2013-01-15 10:13:06 AM  

thornhill: The purpose of this reading is to reaffirm the Tea Party belief that we've strayed from what the Founding Fathers wanted, that the Constitution as written in 1787 is perfect, that it should be interpreted as literally as possible, that despite it being 2013 we should be trying to conform to it as much as possible, etc.

The fact that they are scrubbing it reveals: 1) That their argument is flawed; and 2) Their hypocrisy.


Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.
 
2013-01-15 10:20:07 AM  

Millennium: Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.


Well , then they contradict themselves. Because if they believe the original intent of the laws, including the Constitution, must be followed, they they must accept the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch over constitutional law.
 
2013-01-15 10:31:31 AM  

thornhill: actualhuman: thornhill: Philip Francis Queeg: thornhill: 3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,

Ohh, I don't know. I think writing in the social policy that you cannot own other human beings as property was a pretty good idea.

Slavery is not "social policy" -- it's a human rights issue, like cruel and unusual punishment.

Social policy is about trying to influence and control behavior, such as Prohibition.

It could just be me but I think the fact that we're arguing about this illustrates this point rather nicely: at the time slavery was, if not universally at least widely, regarded as perfectly reasonable economic policy. Today it's regarded as a terribly human rights abuse. Demonstrating rather handily that any set of laws needs to be a "living document" in order to continue to function in the face of new learning and human advancement.

/TL;DR: The only constant is change, and that it was conservatives (the real ones) will always lose eventually. Intelligent conservatives know this and simply try to lose in the most widely acceptable manner.

Not to quibble, but human rights were recognized at the time as a right\


I never implied they weren't. That'd be pretty stupid.
 
2013-01-15 10:32:20 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.

Well , then they contradict themselves. Because if they believe the original intent of the laws, including the Constitution, must be followed, they they must accept the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch over constitutional law.

If

the judicial branch works according to its responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws, then yes. The Tea Party's position (and mine) is that the modern Judicial branch has gone haywire, creatively "reinterpreting" laws to make them say whatever they want instead of what the lawmaker actually said.
 
2013-01-15 10:36:31 AM  

Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.

Well , then they contradict themselves. Because if they believe the original intent of the laws, including the Constitution, must be followed, they they must accept the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch over constitutional law.

If the judicial branch works according to its responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws, then yes. The Tea Party's position (and mine) is that the modern Judicial branch has gone haywire, creatively "reinterpreting" laws to make them say whatever they want instead of what the lawmaker actually said.


The judicial branch does not have a responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws. It has a responsibility to follow the Constitution as written.

Are you claiming that the 14th Amendment's requirement for the equal protection of the laws extends only to those groups that the Amendment's writers conceived for them to?
 
2013-01-15 10:37:45 AM  

Millennium: thornhill: The purpose of this reading is to reaffirm the Tea Party belief that we've strayed from what the Founding Fathers wanted, that the Constitution as written in 1787 is perfect, that it should be interpreted as literally as possible, that despite it being 2013 we should be trying to conform to it as much as possible, etc.

The fact that they are scrubbing it reveals: 1) That their argument is flawed; and 2) Their hypocrisy.

Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.


But they're literally trying to paint social insurance and social goods as against the founding principles!

(The Tea Party, mind you. The Republican platform is quieter about it. Almost.)

When they stomp their feet demanding SS and Medicare cuts, the raising of the retirement age, and then cite the Constitution and the words "the founders never intended" to back them up in the same breath, how is that NOT the distorted argument Thornhill stated above? Where's the caricature?
 
2013-01-15 10:41:12 AM  

delathi: On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.


Denial is not river in Egypt.
 
2013-01-15 10:44:06 AM  

Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.

Well , then they contradict themselves. Because if they believe the original intent of the laws, including the Constitution, must be followed, they they must accept the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch over constitutional law.

If the judicial branch works according to its responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws, then yes. The Tea Party's position (and mine) is that the modern Judicial branch has gone haywire, creatively "reinterpreting" laws to make them say whatever they want instead of what the lawmaker actually said.


Our legal system and principal of judicial review is based on English Common law were judges interpreting laws was standard practice (in fact, until the Federal Code was fleshed out into what it is today, huge chunks of our laws were unwritten common laws -- heck, until 1978, common law copyright was still alive and well). So the founders knew exactly what they were giving us -- they knew there would be so called judicial activism, and in many ways, judges back then were much more powerful because there were so few written laws on the books.
 
2013-01-15 10:45:10 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.

Well , then they contradict themselves. Because if they believe the original intent of the laws, including the Constitution, must be followed, they they must accept the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch over constitutional law.

If the judicial branch works according to its responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws, then yes. The Tea Party's position (and mine) is that the modern Judicial branch has gone haywire, creatively "reinterpreting" laws to make them say whatever they want instead of what the lawmaker actually said.

The judicial branch does not have a responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws. It has a responsibility to follow the Constitution as written.

Are you claiming that the 14th Amendment's requirement for the equal protection of the laws extends only to those groups that the Amendment's writers conceived for them to?


+1
 
2013-01-15 10:48:24 AM  

delathi: On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.


In isolation, you're right.  But this is also the party of American Exceptionalism who try to minimize the effects of slavery and pretend that it was really something good.  Just a couple of days ago, the organizer of the Gun Appreciation Day said that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have supported his efforts and that if African slaves had been allowed to be armed, there would have been no slavery.  These are the types of people we're dealing with.
 
2013-01-15 10:53:56 AM  

delathi: thornhill: delathi: thornhill: delathi: On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.

Because

1) It shows that the Constitution is an imperfect document, that the Founders didn't get everything right.

2) That has to be amended from time-to-time because the nation is always evolving (it's not 1787 anymore); and

3) Serves as a reminder how flawed it is to try to write social policy into it,

That would be quite lovely in a History or Political Science class.. or wholly appropriate for a discussion on the merits and flaws of our system of government. But if you are reading the Law of the Land, I do not see the point to reading extra junk that isn't the law anymore.

When posting speed limit signs, they don't also post every previous speed limit the road has had as a cautionary illustration on safety and revenue streams.

So our lawmakers should never engage in any kind of thinking about the flaws of our system of government?

Who said that?
I'm just pointing out that if it is your intention to read the Constitution as the Law of the Land, as a ceremonial opening to a session of Congress, then you should read what is actually the law and not the extraneous cast offs.

If it is your intention to read the Constitution as a matter of study or history, then it is absolutely necessary to include the edits and the history of the document.

This silly stunt by Boehner seems, to me, to fall clearly into the first, not the second.


When the Tea Party and, in particular, Glen Beck go on and on about the Constitution, it certainly doesn't feel like they are simply celebrating the laws of the land. It feels like they are attempting to give the Constitution and the Founding Fathers some sort of immutable truth, like the Bible (in their eyes.)

One of the best arguments against this is that, in the 1700s, it was OK to own people.

But I suppose all they are doing are "Celebrating the Laws of the Land."
i.qkme.me
 
2013-01-15 11:02:48 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.

Well , then they contradict themselves. Because if they believe the original intent of the laws, including the Constitution, must be followed, they they must accept the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch over constitutional law.

If the judicial branch works according to its responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws, then yes. The Tea Party's position (and mine) is that the modern Judicial branch has gone haywire, creatively "reinterpreting" laws to make them say whatever they want instead of what the lawmaker actually said.

The judicial branch does not have a responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws. It has a responsibility to follow the Constitution as written.


i.e. the original intent of the laws.

Are you claiming that the 14th Amendment's requirement for the equal protection of the laws extends only to those groups that the Amendment's writers conceived for them to?

Yes, though I do not claim that other groups cannot be added to that list: only that it should happen through the same democratic process used to pass the 14th Amendment in the first place. I think this very much needs to happen in a number of cases, and that despite the requirement that 3/4ths of the states sign on before that goes into effect, in most cases it shouldn't even prove too terribly difficult: the dialogue has reached the point where many of these are no-brainers. There are still some cases where the dialogue has not reached that point, but the solution to that is more dialogue, not trying to ram it through via judicial fiat.
 
2013-01-15 11:08:09 AM  

Millennium: Are you claiming that the 14th Amendment's requirement for the equal protection of the laws extends only to those groups that the Amendment's writers conceived for them to?

Yes, though I do not claim that other groups cannot be added to that list: only that it should happen through the same democratic process used to pass the 14th Amendment in the first place. I think this very much needs to happen in a number of cases, and that despite the requirement that 3/4ths of the states sign on before that goes into effect, in most cases it shouldn't even prove too terribly difficult: the dialogue has reached the point where many of these are no-brainers. There are still some cases where the dialogue has not reached that point, but the solution to that is more dialogue, not trying to ram it through via judicial fiat.



So then you believe the United Sates Air Force is unconstitutional and should be immediately disbanded by the Federal Courts, that women are not entitled to the equal protection of the law, and that wiretapping US citizens without a warrant is legal is entirely Constitutional. Got it.
 
2013-01-15 11:11:11 AM  
nomoreliesplease.com
 
2013-01-15 11:26:59 AM  

Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.

Well , then they contradict themselves. Because if they believe the original intent of the laws, including the Constitution, must be followed, they they must accept the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch over constitutional law.

If the judicial branch works according to its responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws, then yes. The Tea Party's position (and mine) is that the modern Judicial branch has gone haywire, creatively "reinterpreting" laws to make them say whatever they want instead of what the lawmaker actually said.

The judicial branch does not have a responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws. It has a responsibility to follow the Constitution as written.

i.e. the original intent of the laws.

Are you claiming that the 14th Amendment's requirement for the equal protection of the laws extends only to those groups that the Amendment's writers conceived for them to?

Yes, though I do not claim that other groups cannot be added to that list: only that it should happen through the same democratic process used to pass the 14th Amendment in the first place. I think this very much needs to happen in a number of cases, and that despite the requirement that 3/4ths of the states sign on before that goes into effect, in most cases it shouldn't even prove too terribly difficult: the dialogue has reached the point where many of these are no-brainers. There are still some cases where the ...


Constitutions are not meant to be amended all of the time -- that's what the Federal Code is for.

The genius of the Constitution is that it pithily affirms certain principals without getting into the weeds. It is very clear to citizens what their general rights are -- you don't have to read something the size of a telephone book.

What you're advocating is that it be written like the Federal Code, where there's the "right to free speech" and then fifty pages that explain all of the limitations on free speech.
 
2013-01-15 11:31:38 AM  
Republicans burning taxpayer dollars to read to their illiterate caucus? Really seems like it should be an after-hours project, since, ya know, most people can farking read.
 
2013-01-15 11:56:37 AM  

thornhill: Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.

Well , then they contradict themselves. Because if they believe the original intent of the laws, including the Constitution, must be followed, they they must accept the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch over constitutional law.

If the judicial branch works according to its responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws, then yes. The Tea Party's position (and mine) is that the modern Judicial branch has gone haywire, creatively "reinterpreting" laws to make them say whatever they want instead of what the lawmaker actually said.

The judicial branch does not have a responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws. It has a responsibility to follow the Constitution as written.

i.e. the original intent of the laws.

Are you claiming that the 14th Amendment's requirement for the equal protection of the laws extends only to those groups that the Amendment's writers conceived for them to?

Yes, though I do not claim that other groups cannot be added to that list: only that it should happen through the same democratic process used to pass the 14th Amendment in the first place. I think this very much needs to happen in a number of cases, and that despite the requirement that 3/4ths of the states sign on before that goes into effect, in most cases it shouldn't even prove too terribly difficult: the dialogue has reached the point where many of these are no-brainers. There are still some case ...


A good example of that is the alabama constitution. Just about everything has to be a constitutional amendment becuase of the way it is written.
 
2013-01-15 12:04:47 PM  

Elfich: thornhill: Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Philip Francis Queeg: Millennium: Only if that's actually their argument, and not a caricature dreamed up by their opponents to paint them as the villains of the world. And the fact is, that simply isn't their argument. They do believe that the original intent of a law should be followed as strictly as possible, but most of them do not believe that laws should be forever unchanging. What they believe is that there should only be one way to change laws: the same democratic process used to put the original laws into place.

Well , then they contradict themselves. Because if they believe the original intent of the laws, including the Constitution, must be followed, they they must accept the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch over constitutional law.

If the judicial branch works according to its responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws, then yes. The Tea Party's position (and mine) is that the modern Judicial branch has gone haywire, creatively "reinterpreting" laws to make them say whatever they want instead of what the lawmaker actually said.

The judicial branch does not have a responsibility to follow the original intent of the laws. It has a responsibility to follow the Constitution as written.

i.e. the original intent of the laws.

Are you claiming that the 14th Amendment's requirement for the equal protection of the laws extends only to those groups that the Amendment's writers conceived for them to?

Yes, though I do not claim that other groups cannot be added to that list: only that it should happen through the same democratic process used to pass the 14th Amendment in the first place. I think this very much needs to happen in a number of cases, and that despite the requirement that 3/4ths of the states sign on before that goes into effect, in most cases it shouldn't even prove too terribly difficult: the dialogue has reached the point where many of these are no-brainers. There are stil ...


And it's a total nightmare of a document. It's 40 times longer than the Constitution, longer than any Constitution currently in use in the world, 75 percent of the amendments cover only a single county or city, and gets so far down in the weeds that it includes salaries for government jobs.
 
2013-01-15 12:08:32 PM  

Mentat: In isolation, you're right.  But this is also the party of American Exceptionalism who try to minimize the effects of slavery and pretend that it was really something good.  Just a couple of days ago, the organizer of the Gun Appreciation Day said that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have supported his efforts and that if African slaves had been allowed to be armed, there would have been no slavery.  These are the types of people we're dealing with.


If African slaves had been armed, then surely the African slavers that capture them would have been armed as well, so I can't see that would have made much difference on aggregate - except for more dead bodies on both sides, but the practise was so lucrative that the risks would have still easily been worth it for the slavers.
 
2013-01-15 12:35:00 PM  
Thank God they're reading the constitution, while wilfully ignoring their oath to it.

Hey guys, maybe you should increase the debt ceiling instead so that the country doesn't spin into default.
 
2013-01-15 12:37:15 PM  

xria: Mentat: In isolation, you're right.  But this is also the party of American Exceptionalism who try to minimize the effects of slavery and pretend that it was really something good.  Just a couple of days ago, the organizer of the Gun Appreciation Day said that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have supported his efforts and that if African slaves had been allowed to be armed, there would have been no slavery.  These are the types of people we're dealing with.

If African slaves had been armed, then surely the African slavers that capture them would have been armed as well, so I can't see that would have made much difference on aggregate - except for more dead bodies on both sides, but the practise was so lucrative that the risks would have still easily been worth it for the slavers.



Well, when you're a moron who believes that owning a gun = having legally recognized civil rights, then it makes sense.

Because there have never been any oppressed people in history with access to guns. And having guns always helped the oppressed people, rather than make the oppression worse.
 
2013-01-15 12:43:27 PM  
But they are not going to read the the 12th and thusly Romney will be swarn in as VP.
 
2013-01-15 12:48:13 PM  

Millennium: The Tea Party's position (and mine) is that the modern Judicial branch has gone haywire, creatively "reinterpreting" laws to make them say whatever they want instead of what the lawmaker actually said.


However, whether or not they have gone haywire is foremost a question of law and equity under the Constitution, and answering such is reserved to the SCOTUS -- who effectively have said "no, we haven't". The question may also be raised as a matter of politics under the Constitution, via impeachment of haywire justices or Amendment -- to which the question is again clearly "not yet they haven't".

Therefore, according to the Constitution, you're wrong.

Millennium: Yes, though I do not claim that other groups cannot be added to that list


"Citizen" and "person" in Section 1 are pretty widely encompassing groups for insuring equal protection across.
 
2013-01-15 06:29:44 PM  

Mentat: delathi: On one hand, this is a stupid stunt, but why would you read the parts that have been removed by amendment?

The Constitution does not include them anymore, they are not the law of the land. They have been edited out.

It would be like putting all the bad takes and edited footage back into a movie when you watched it
Or publishing the submitted manuscript to a book instead of the edited and proofread copy that we would rather read.

In isolation, you're right. But this is also the party of American Exceptionalism who try to minimize the effects of slavery and pretend that it was really something good. Just a couple of days ago, the organizer of the Gun Appreciation Day said that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have supported his efforts and that if African slaves had been allowed to be armed, there would have been no slavery. These are the types of people we're dealing with.


You spelled "triangle trade" wrong, libtard

/:P
 
2013-01-15 07:53:04 PM  
My offer stands to every teatard in the House: If they promise to do nothing but pass any bill that passes the Senate (just literally take the Senate bill word for word) and read the Constitution over and over, I will support doubling my taxes. I'm in the BOTTOM quintile for income.

It's worth every penny.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report