Congress discovers the Constitution
I don't know how many of you caught this article but it is well worth the read.
Congress discovers the Constitution
WASHINGTON — January 5, 2011 – The Majority Leadership of the 112th Congress is “going where no Congress has gone before” by reading the actual Constitution and all of its Amendments into the Congressional Record. It obviously has taken a page from my book, The National Platform of Common Sense (page 61 to be exact). You see, if you serve in Congress, you have taken the following oath:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The ACLU need not be concerned as I’m sure that devout atheists will be allowed to “affirm” to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” rather than being forced to “swear” to God or invoke His help. Of course, that will all occur after Congress is brought to session with its opening prayer. I guess you can say “Amen” for that tradition.
House Speaker-designate John Boehner of Ohio walks to the floor of the House on Capitol Hill in Washington Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2011. (Photo: Associated Press)
Common sense tells us that if our Congressmen are going to swear (or affirm) to uphold the Constitution, they should at least be familiar with it. In The National Platform of Common Sense, I call for them to be tested on it. Can you imagine what a political catastrophe that would be?
Yet, many political pundits are assailing the reading of the Constitution as political grandstanding. Ezra Klein, a staff writer for The Washington Post and an MSNBC Contributor, recently portrayed the reading as “a gimmick” and stated, “The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending upon what they want to get done.”
Perhaps, Mr. Klein and the other naysayers are correct. They are, after all, objective journalists.
The Constitution is actually over 223 years old, so the issue of archaic language may present even a greater obstacle than Mr. Klein suggests. Let’s see: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Hmmmm … other than the spelling of “defence,” the language appears to be reasonably clear.
Go Read The Rest.
Congress discovers the Constitution
WASHINGTON — January 5, 2011 – The Majority Leadership of the 112th Congress is “going where no Congress has gone before” by reading the actual Constitution and all of its Amendments into the Congressional Record. It obviously has taken a page from my book, The National Platform of Common Sense (page 61 to be exact). You see, if you serve in Congress, you have taken the following oath:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The ACLU need not be concerned as I’m sure that devout atheists will be allowed to “affirm” to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” rather than being forced to “swear” to God or invoke His help. Of course, that will all occur after Congress is brought to session with its opening prayer. I guess you can say “Amen” for that tradition.
House Speaker-designate John Boehner of Ohio walks to the floor of the House on Capitol Hill in Washington Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2011. (Photo: Associated Press)
Common sense tells us that if our Congressmen are going to swear (or affirm) to uphold the Constitution, they should at least be familiar with it. In The National Platform of Common Sense, I call for them to be tested on it. Can you imagine what a political catastrophe that would be?
Yet, many political pundits are assailing the reading of the Constitution as political grandstanding. Ezra Klein, a staff writer for The Washington Post and an MSNBC Contributor, recently portrayed the reading as “a gimmick” and stated, “The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending upon what they want to get done.”
Perhaps, Mr. Klein and the other naysayers are correct. They are, after all, objective journalists.
The Constitution is actually over 223 years old, so the issue of archaic language may present even a greater obstacle than Mr. Klein suggests. Let’s see: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Hmmmm … other than the spelling of “defence,” the language appears to be reasonably clear.
Go Read The Rest.
posted by ablur at 1/06/2011 11:20:00 AM
1 Comments:
Who would have ever thought that an elected representative would refer to reading the Constitution as a 'gimmick'?
Madison was worried, even in his day, that the Constitution was already misunderstood and misapplied. Apparently, the 'living and breathing' campaign is as old as the document itself.
Post a Comment
<< Home