AShotAndaBeer's Blog

Politics, Firearms, and things that amuse me

The Controversial Constitution

with 7 comments

Yesterday, the Republican majority elected in November were sworn into office and took control of the House Of Representatives. This was in no small part thanks to the rise of the Tea Party rallies, websites, and groups that sprang up in response to excessive government spending and overreach in grabbing for power.

It appears, at least for now, that Republicans, for the most part, have learned from listening to us. A movement among them seems dedicated to bringing the Constitution into the spotlight, including a full reading of it on the House floor during session and citing Constitutional Authority in any new bills brought up for a vote.

Since this announcement, the leftists have had a collective pantie-wetting. Ezra Klein lamented that it was pointless, because the Constitution was like “over 100 years old,” and no one understood it anyway. The New York Times opined that reading the document was somehow “raaaaacist,” citing the original compromise written in concerning the 3/5ths person rule.

Meanwhile, Joy Blowhard on her CNN Headline News show seems to be getting annoyed about it, thinking this whole Constitution-loving thing is getting “out of hand.” And several talking-head mouthpieces try to compare revering our founding document to a religious fanaticism.

None of this deterred them, however, as the Republicans in the House took turns this morning reading a line or two from Constitution, getting through the whole thing in about an hour and a half or so. And lo-and-behold, the 3/5ths thing was not mentioned.

Well, DUH! Through the Amendment process outlined in Article 5, several lines, sections, and other Amendments have been revised, changed, and even repealed. Including, of course, the 3/5ths provision.

What some appear to not understand, or refuse to, is that there have been changes made. No one, at least no one with any seriousness, wants to return to the days of slavery, or women not being able to vote. Yet any time anyone mentions “returning to Constitutional Principles” the idiots on the left throw up that is precisely what they want.

Serious people from all sides can debate exactly how the Constitution applies to today’s modern world. That is good, healthy, and leads to more informed and engaged people. And if there is something that is not good, or no longer applicable, then Article 5 can be exercised and the Amendments made.

The problem is, though, that the left seems to think that the whole thing should just be trashed, and let them define what is good for the country or not. This can not happen, lest we lose all the freedom Americans have been guaranteed by the Constitution.

Advertisements

Written by James Lee

January 6, 2011 at 13:30

Posted in Uncategorized

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. James Lee: The New York Times opined that reading the document was somehow “raaaaacist,” citing the original compromise written in concerning the 3/5ths person rule.

    Citation please.

    James Lee: None of this deterred them, however, as the Republicans in the House took turns this morning reading a line or two from Constitution, getting through the whole thing in about an hour and a half or so. And lo-and-behold, the 3/5ths thing was not mentioned.

    Then not the whole thing.

    James Lee: Well, DUH! Through the Amendment process outlined in Article 5, several lines, sections, and other Amendments have been revised, changed, and even repealed. Including, of course, the 3/5ths provision.

    Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are appended to the original text. The original text remains, though the doctrine of implicit repeal may apply.

    It’s a shame they didn’t read the entire Constitution. They should have.

    James Lee: The problem is, though, that the left seems to think that the whole thing should just be trashed, and let them define what is good for the country or not.

    Overgeneralization based on a non-specific speaker. The vast majority of people on the Left in the U.S. fully support the Constitutional system.

    Zachriel

    January 6, 2011 at 17:43

    • If I recall, the citation you requested I saw at Newsbusters, or Media Research Center. Sorry, things have happened fairly quickly in all this, and with work and such, I got a little lazy with my citations and links.

      Nearly every written version I come across has the amended or repealed sections set apart, by either italicizing or parenthesis, to indicate they are not part of it any longer. As such, in a reading such as this with the goals intended by it, I have no problem with leaving out currently inapplicable sections. (In a historical context, sure, leave it there to show what was changed or repealed. In my opinion, this was a different situation.)

      Glad to hear the vast majority DO support it, sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between those who do, and those who would ignore and/or circumvent it to achieve their goals.

      James Lee

      January 6, 2011 at 17:53

  2. James Lee: Nearly every written version I come across has the amended or repealed sections set apart, by either italicizing or parenthesis, to indicate they are not part of it any longer.

    That doesn’t change the fact that Amendments to the Constitution are appended. Any changes to the existing text can be subject to interpretation, so there is no official rewrite of the Constitution. It doesn’t exist. What that means is that the Congress read an abridged version of the Constitution.

    U.S. Constitution

    Zachriel

    January 6, 2011 at 18:28

    • Fair enough, but again, the sections are not currently relevant to the goals they were trying to accomplish. And for what it’s worth, I wrote this before I read this, who expressed the same opinion: http://minx.cc/?post=310344

      James Lee

      January 6, 2011 at 18:33

  3. James Lee: Fair enough, but again, the sections are not currently relevant to the goals they were trying to accomplish.

    If their goal was to omit the parts of the Constitution they were uncomfortable with, then they succeeded. Again, the amendment process has not been to replace text, but to append. You were provided a cite to the National Archives.

    If they were going to read the U.S. Constitution, at least they should have read the actual U.S. Constitution.

    Zachriel

    January 6, 2011 at 21:24

    • And you want me to actually believe that had every word, repealed or otherwise, had been read, that the wingnut moonbats would not have been crying about those dirty evil Republicans that just want to bring back slavery? Please. We’ll agree to disagree here. I see your point, and understand it’s not “rewritten” when amended.

      James Lee

      January 7, 2011 at 08:50

  4. Ace: What the article actually describes: The “notable passages” left out of the reading are the parts of the Constitution which are no longer part of the Constitution — that is, the parts which have been replaced/written out by subsequent amendments, and are therefore not in fact “part of the Constitution,” except in a purely historical way.

    That is incorrect for reasons already provided. We added a comment to Ace’s blog so he can correct his post.

    Zachriel

    January 6, 2011 at 21:36


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: