NY Times: Reading U.S. Constitution an “Empty, Pompous, Self-Righteous Act”…
I feel the same way about reading the New York Times.
(NY Times)- A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber. And in one particularly self-important flourish, the new speaker, John Boehner, arranged to have his office staff “sworn in” on Tuesday by the chief justice of the United States.
Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.
The empty gestures are officially intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate — presumably to the Republicans’ Tea Party supporters — that things are about to be done very differently. But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation’s foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?
In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.
HT: Fox Nation
Posted by ZIP on Wednesday, January 5, 2011, at 9:47 am | 
Tweet
The values and principles of the Constitution are such anathema to the commies that I fully expect Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz and the CBC to spontaneously combust upon the reading.
Congressman King was correct.
For Fish, Dionne, Behar, The NYSlimes and the rest of fucking proggie twits annoyed with the Constitution.
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.
We the People, sovereign individuals entered into a mutual contract to form a government. That government is subservient to, subject to, The People.
The Government and the administrators of that gov’t, elected officials and hired functionaries are only to administer the functions this contract. The People are not subject to the gov’t or it’s functionaries except with the consent of The People. The Constitution is adaptable to changing times, not for light or transitory reasons, but it can be changed. Not through unread bills passed by congress, not by 5 in black robes, but by a set forth amendment process.
Many of us took an oath to defend the Constitution, many of took and still take that oath seriously. Anyone who would change the terms of the contract without the consent of the parties to the contract are in fact an enemies foreign or domestic.
If you are a domestic enemy, might I politely suggest you find some place where the contract is more to your liking, say North Korea.
Who cares what the NY Pravda thinks.
As if needed, more proof of the immaturity of the Left.
And I LOVE this line at the end of the article: “Voters, no less than drama critics, prefer substance to overblown theatrics.”
Like Frank Rich?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
The Constitution never said that African-Americans counted as 3/5 of a person. It said that people held to bound labor counted at 3/5 for representation and taxation. To assume that all black people were slaves is a racist assumption of their inferiority.
Funny but reading the NY Times leaves me feeling gaseous.
Slimes shut down comments already on the story. Cowards.
The only thing they forgot to say is “And it is totally unamerican!!
Jerks!!!!
Reading the Quran on the other hand would be lauded as englightening, brave and progressive. Especially the bits about the killing or subjugation of non moslems. But the consitution..it is an evil thing..evil because its every word defies the sharia.
I dont feel like i should be forced to have health insurance, I think everyone would like to have health insurance if they could afford it. If you need affordable health insurance search online “Wise Health Insurance” you dont want to be with out insurance any time.
Weez ~ we should encourage everyone to post the constitution on their blogs in support of the House, of America Herself, and every freedom-loving, human-dignity-abiding red blooded American out there!
What a twisting of words! The republicans are not responsible for putting people back to work, the plan is to give the power back to the people! The Constitution is the foundation of this wonderful country and I am so sick of them trashing it.
they cannot accept the fact that they should be responsible for their own actions, for too long too many people have had the ability to fail and get bailed out by the governments.
lets simplify, you fail you die.
literally and figuratively as the scenario fits.
comments there showed a good example, someone spends almost 200K getting a law degree but fails all bar exams and now, at 49 yrs old, is working as a legal secretary and unable to pay bills.
the solution suggested was file bankruptcy.
how about this, pass the bar or live under a friggin bridge.
there, i’ve posted the Constitution on my blog + a link to this post here on Facebook with encouragement for folk on FB to post the opening paragraph of the Constitution… let’s get the Constitution out there amongst We the People!
“Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?”
Yes. Any more questions?
Besides, I thought you leftist pieces of trash didn’t care about the constitution. I thought you dumbasses thought the language was too old, moldy and wrinkly. Why do you care, now?
I really can’t believe these people.. Of course its the Constitution that gives them their rights to bash it and if we take it away then we are going to have Shaira law up our asses and lets see how the press handles that.. after one or two beheadings..
At least it doesn’t take all that long to read the Constitution. And one can understand what one reads when one does so.
Unlike the Health Care legislation.
It will be interesting to see who is actually in attendance when the document is read, and what they are doing while the reading proceeds. My bet is that Democrat attendance will be sparse. No need to worry about Pelosi “spontaneously combusting.” She probably would, if she were there; not likely she will be though.
Nice thing about the Constitution: it’s been there for the last 223 years. This article in the New York Times will mostly be in trash and recycle bins by this time tomorrow.
Good, then the new Congress will fit in perfectly with the last two.
“Empty, pompous, self rightgeous act”—same can be said about reading the Sunday New York Times.
Having freefall skydived a few times…I wonder if they’d approach that sport the same way?
Ehh, why bother to spend time studying proper procedures for packing the parachute, donning and securing the chute harness, proper freefall form, and how to actually deploy the canopy? (Where was the end of that pesky ripcord?)
Seems like such a pompous waste of time, doesnt it?
Heck, jump out of the aircraft and just let things just happen as they may! Enjoy the view on the way down and before you know it you’ll be on the ground.
What could go possibly go wrong?
Skydiving joke:
What’s the difference between golfing and skydiving?
In golfing you can hear, “Whack–@&#&!!”
In skydiving you can hear, “@&#&!!–whack!”
Bird-cage liner…fire-starter…worthless rag.
Let’s check out that 2007 coverage of Speaker Pelosi …
Funny how the Times reviled in “Pelosi-palooza”
The Constitution is beautifully written and has endured for over 200 years. I cannot understand any American objecting to its being read.
I don’t agree with Congress’ decision to read the Constitution aloud before the commencement of the new session. It seems like a waste of time by men and women who should already be well-versed in what the document that forms the basis of our policital systems says. If someone is going to make a career in our goverment they probably should have read the Constitution by now.
Moving on, I completely reject the idea the Democrats have a lack of respect for the Constitution. The men who wrote the Constitution did not mean for it to be a documents that never changed. It was never meant to be unchanging words written on stone tablets. That’s why the amendment process was created in the first place. It is the very thing that has allowed the Constitution to endure for the last two hundred-plus years. The framers of the Constitution were not Gods and they knew that that document they had created was far from perfect and that it would face challenges in a changing society in the years ahead. The twenty-plus amendments that have happened since stand as testimony to the idea that the Constitution is a document that was designed to be adaptable. You can love the Constitution and still understand that it isn’t perfect.
The whole idea of the “Tea Party” is taking a group that existed a certain time in our history and corrupting to fit a completely different set of cirumstances. When the Sons of Libery stood up and threw British Tea into Boston Harbor they were part of a political system where they had no representation – they had no voice in Parliament. I have a news flash for all the Tea Party people – you can vote. You want someone different in Congress – go out and vote! You have representation. You have the power that the Sons of Liberty were lacking. Use it.
It is just too easy for the Republicans to paint anyone who stands a little to the left as a Communist (or I guess now a days a Terrorist-lover) or Anti-American. You can love this country and still see its warts and want it to get better. Maybe its time for the Left to stand up and start calling the Republicans what they really are – FACISTS
Nathaniel
So, from what I am getting from you is that you believe that the Constitution was supposed to just be stirring words of prose, not an actual document deliniating the powers of the Federal Government. You are correct, the men who wrote the Constitution did not mean for it to be a document that never changed. That is why they put in a process for amending it. They also never intended it to be a “living document” in the sense that the Democrats mean when they use the term. The Constitution cannot be “interpreted” to mean whatever one wants at any particular point in time. Were that the case, it would not be worth the paper it is printed on. A constitution with that definition is no constitution at all!
All we are asking is that if you want to change the document, then do so! Don’t just ignore it and do as you please.
I would presume that when the Republicans say they are going to read the document aloud, they also mean to read all the amendments as well, since they are part of the Constitution. This pretty much renders you argument moot. And no one said the document was perfect. It is however, the bedrock document that our government is based on, and should by that fact be followed. To do otherwise invites tyranny.
You obviously also misunderstand the Tea Party movement. What good is representation when the elected representatives ignore those who elected them? It is sort of like the old Soviet Union, which claimed to be a democracy because they had elections. Of course, they only had one party and one candidate for each office, but hey! At least you got to vote!
The Tea Party movement is not a corruption of the original Boston tea party. That “party” was a protest against an illegal tax. The current Tea Party movement is protesting against what they see as a government out of control. I have news for you – Tea Party people DID vote. And the results of those votes are now sitting in Congress. Are you saying that simply because we have representatives and can vote in elections that we should NOT protest against our government when we think it in error? When did that become the new “American norm?” Since the Democrats took over in 2009? It certainly was not in effect when George Bush was president!
I have news for you; Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their ilk don’t just stand “a little to the left;” not unless you have left-shifted the entire political continnuim by QUITE a bit. I do love my country, warts and all. That is why I took an oath to defend it, and will continue to do so until I die. I just don’t see a leftist perscription as the cure for what is wrong.
And, while you are at it, perhaps you should look up the definition of the word “Facist” before you start slinging it around like you are; it does NOT mean “conservative” or “Republican”, or, automatically, anyone that thinks differently from yourself.
oh the old living document argument rises up again.
guess it should have been written in pencil then.
Now if congress had read the Soviet Constitution, NYT would have been creaming their collective pants, ask Walter Duranty. He has many ideological offspring remaining there.
Random –
First of all, thank you for writing back. A healthy political discourse is what keeps this country moving forward and invites all parties to carefully consider and defend their positions.
I disagree with you that the Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be a “living document.” Its status as a “living document” is written right into the text – the necessary and proper clause (Section 8, Clause 18) was written in order to help define government functions not listed in the Constitution. John Madison himself in Federalist Paper # 44 argues that the necessary and property clause was “invulernable” because taking the time to list all of the functions of the government would be absurd and that no list could take into account all of the country’s future concerns. The man considered to be the “Father of the Constitution” argued in favor of a clause that makes the Constitution a living document. The Founding Fathers wrote language into the document that would make it flexible and responsive enough to still be operating 200 years later without the need for an amendment every other year. The amendment process is an unwiedy and time consuming process. If everytime we needed to change what the Constitution could and could not do we needed to pass an amendment this country would have ground to a halt years ago.
So according to your argument we should follow exactly what the Constitution and its twenty-six amendments says? So that would mean giving back the Lousiana Puchase, right? No where in the Constitution does it say that our government can buy a large piece of territory from a foreign government. In fact it was one of the things that Thomas Jefferson wrestled with before he finally agreed to do it (he decided it was too much of a benefit to pass up). I believe Jefferson even considered getting an amendment passed before he decided to do it. So many things that our government has accomplished over its history have been made possible because people in our government decided to bend the definition of the Constitution.
But you may argue, what would stop an out of control Democratic congress from running-roughshod over America. Well… two things. Both of them accounted for by men smarter then we are – Hamilton and Madison. One – if you don’t like what your representatives are doing, vote! Vote them out of office. Contrary to your allusion toward Soviet Russia (not accurate), we do have multiple parties that you can support if you don’t agree with what Congress is doing. Maybe I was wrong about the Tea Party, I do have to admire their ability to organize and get people voting. They absolutely had a program and got the people that they wanted elected. Translation – the system is working! Your metaphor to Soviet Russia falls apart when you consider that the system allowed the Tea Party and the Republicans to vote in a Congress that they control. That would have never happened in a system like Soviet Russia. Second, reason the Congress cannot run over everything they don’t like – checks and balances. Our political system is absolutely brillant in that it created a system whereby the two other branches of the government serve as a check on the power of another branch.
As for my labeling of Republicans as Facists, I stand by what I said. Facism believes in strong leadership, a collective national identity while rejecting pluralism and individuality. Sure sounds like the right to me! As soon as Democrats disagree with the Right’s agenda they are labeled as Communists or Anti-American. That sure sounds like creating a “collective national identity.” Maybe I used hyperbole in using that label, but no more so then when Democrats are labeld as Communists.
So in all consideration, I do not label myself a Democrat. I will admit that I am a liberal. Perhaps the best label for my position is that I am a Hamiltonian. I too will support this country no matter what, but I believe in a loose interpretation of the Constitution and a powerful, active Federal government.
Ah, the NY Times is just irrelevant period! I’d say at least 3/5 irrelevant, probably 99%; they do report the weather don’t they? Hell, I’ll take my chances with the 112Th Congresa over – being called un-American by Pelosi, Hoyer and other honorable representatives simply because they didn’t like my point of view. I’d like to see the NY Times present their idea of a Constitution –sort of put their money where their ass is! Oh ya the NY Times forgets that Obamacare was passed”?” in the middle of the night with the buying of votes and let’s make a deal mentality by those who didn’t read it much less understand it. Cost justification – tax Americans for four or five years before counting costs of five. The socialist have one good idea – boycotts. Let those companies that advertise in the NY Times know that we’ll not buy their products when given a choice and as long as they’re providing revenue for the NY Times gibberish!
Of course we run a chance that the Obamacare people will invoke the Commerce clause to force us all to buy the NY Times News toilet paper!