In a nation founded upon the U.S. Constitution, one might think that reading the founding document out loud on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives might not be controversial, but some on the left suggest those promoting its voicing have a "fetish."
Among them is Dahlia Lithwick of Slate.com, who penned a column titled, "Read It and Weep: How the tea party's fetish for the Constitution as written may get it in trouble."
Dictionaries define "fetish" as an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion, often associated with sexual gratification.
If the "Tea Party Republicans" really listen to the Constitution, they will quickly realize that the document they are hearing is nationalistic, not state-oriented; concerned with giving Congress power, not taking it away; forward-looking, not nostalgic for the past; aimed at creating a new government that can solve new problems, not freezing in place an old one that must fold its hands while the nation declines. So long as there are fair-minded judges on the bench, the Constitution will be read for what it actually says, and not what any one results-oriented group or faction wants it to be.
If the framers and their constituents had all agreed on the precise meaning of the Constitution, it would never have been ratified. Ambiguity was necessary to allow enough people to see in it the possibility of the country they wanted. The Constitution is open to interpretation by the courts and any attempt to encase it's meaning in stone is bound to be inaccurate and unworkable.
As for the current Congress' decision to cite the constitutional authority for any proposed bill, this is just silly political theater. If the law in question is ultimately held constitutional, prefacing it with a citation to the constitution will have been unnecessary. If it is held unconstutional, the same citation will not avail it.
Leaving out selected sections and having a press conference during the reading of it is what makes it controversial. Did you see the video feed? Outside of being there to read their one sentence, none of the party insisting on this reading were even there for it. I think the Tea Party people are in for a big nasty surprise from the right side of the aisle.
When you plant ice you're going to harvest wind. - Robert Hunter
I think they should read it out loud every single day, and pass a written test after. When they achieve an A, they can stop attending. That would be two less hours of passing more laws on us and mucking up the million page Tax code. They also outta make them do their own taxes with pencil and paper too. SOBs!
Time for another beer.
:bash rofllol :woo hoo: :Loco: :Whistle :VeryScared: :scared: :can't hear :faint: :goodone: :smiledance: :gleeful:
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Or make them listen to Rush Limbaugh for 3 hours! HA LOL And then they could have a hangover after reading LJs posts on 285bound. That should just about do it!
rofllol rofllol
rofllol rofllol
:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Soulshiner wrote: Leaving out selected sections and having a press conference during the reading of it is what makes it controversial. Did you see the video feed? Outside of being there to read their one sentence, none of the party insisting on this reading were even there for it. I think the Tea Party people are in for a big nasty surprise from the right side of the aisle.
It won't be a suprise, the switch is ready. BAD DOG.
:Whistle 
:VeryScared: :scared: :can't hear :faint: :goodone: :smiledance: :gleeful: 
And then they could have a hangover after reading LJs posts on 285bound. That should just about do it!
