What Do You Think of The House Reading the Constitution?

[targus]

Dollars to doughnuts that Crabby would have wet himself ...?

Not a fair bet - :laugh:

Beep beep

"Road hog!"
________________________________________________________________________________

MODERATOR NOTE:

***I am going to ask you fellas to cease from foolish jest***

 

[billwald]

>Why would the Constitution mean anything different in the 21st century vs. the 18th century when it was written?

For example, in 1800 "state" meant "independent sovereign nation." This is why England signed the treaty of Paris with each of 13 states and not with the United States of America. Lincoln's Revolution changed the meaning to "province." Our 50 "states" are no longer sovereign nations but are now provinces of the United States.

Supreme Court decisions are to the Constitution as (for most Baptists) Scofield's Notes are to the Bible.

 

[Salty]

Supreme Court decisions are to the Constitution as (for most Baptists) Scofield's Notes are to the Bible.

Interesting analogy.

But for the OP - the biggest criticism was that the section of the 3/5 compromise was NOT read (as it is no longer part of the Constitution), however, since it was NOT read, many - both conservative and liberals have complained - stating that Americans should be made aware of that statement.

Here is the scoop - they should have learned of it in High School American History - or are they not teaching it?

20-20 hindsight tells us it is a good thing the Repub's did NOT read the 3/5, as all of America is getting a great education.
Had it been read, not a peep would have been made - other than it was waste of time.

Thank goodness, Congress did read the entire Constitution - and did NOT read about the 3/5

 

[Arbo]

My thinking is, finally, some of them have read it. They need to do this every week. Maybe it will sink in.

Ditto that, though I fear because of ideology many would still ignore it.

 

[Alcott]

The House convened today and the first order of business was reading the U.S. Constitution from beginning to end.

What do you think of that?

I think it is an unnecessary public relations stunt. Your thoughts?

If they want to prove they can read, I am in favor of it. If it was only a P.R. stunt, and they can't really read, it sure took a lot of memorization.

 

[blackbird]

They have the guts to read it

but

Is there guts to defend it

To stand up FOR it

And to stand up AGAINST anyone opposing and and who threatens the destruction of the US Republic by that oppostion