Politico - Constitution Reading Goes Bipartisan

[Retread Ol' 37]

Constitution reading goes bipartisan - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com

The new Congress kicked off with a reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House today, a first in the chamber’s history.

Republicans proposed the reading, but it turned into a rare moment of true bipartisanship on the floor.

Such utter bullshit, by the Republicans for the grandstanding and by the Democrats for going along with it instead of calling it out as tax-dollar waster this showboating effort was.

 

[California Girl]

Yep. This is by far THE most important topic.









If you're an idiot.

 

[Mini 14]

Call me craxy, but I, for one, find it tragic and hypocritical that this is the first time in 234 years that it has ever been read on the floor of the House.

LONG overdue in my mind, and kudos to BOTH sides for "wasting" an hour on the document that frames their entire existence, duty, and obligation to the Country that defines everything that they are.

 

[Old Rocks]

They did not read the Constitution. They left out parts they did not like. An edited Constitution is not the Constitution. It should have been read in the whole.

 

[Stephanie]

OMG, watching the total MELTDOWN of some over OUR CONGRESS reading the constitution, saying it's a "tax dollar WASTING"

how bout that shit folks.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

OMG, watching the total MELTDOWN of some over OUR CONGRESS reading the constitution, saying it's a "tax dollar WASTING"

how bout that shit folks.

Of course you wouldn't mind paying for all the security for the capitol building, our congressmen's salaries, etc. for the length of time it takes to make nothing more than an empty gesture when you know damn well that those who hadn't followed Constitution before this reading became a requirement are sure as hell not going to follow it now.

This is your Tea Party voter, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[JBeukema]

Constitution reading goes bipartisan - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com

The new Congress kicked off with a reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House today, a first in the chamber’s history.

Republicans proposed the reading, but it turned into a rare moment of true bipartisanship on the floor.

Such utter bullshit, by the Republicans for the grandstanding and by the Democrats for going along with it instead of calling it out as tax-dollar waster this showboating effort was.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

Call me craxy, but I, for one, find it tragic and hypocritical that this is the first time in 234 years that it has ever been read on the floor of the House.

LONG overdue in my mind, and kudos to BOTH sides for "wasting" an hour on the document that frames their entire existence, duty, and obligation to the Country that defines everything that they are.

I guess there was a reason the forefathers didn't need to do this.

Why should we be paying for such rudimentary on-the-job training that should have been offered in any law school that these idiots must have attended before their election? Hell, they should have studied this in high school civics class.

 

[JBeukema]

Call me craxy, but I, for one, find it tragic and hypocritical that this is the first time in 234 years that it has ever been read on the floor of the House.

LONG overdue in my mind, and kudos to BOTH sides for "wasting" an hour on the document that frames their entire existence, duty, and obligation to the Country that defines everything that they are.

Did they read the original or one of the newer versions, after the Leftists got ahold of it and ended slavery?

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

Constitution reading goes bipartisan - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com

The new Congress kicked off with a reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House today, a first in the chamber’s history.

Republicans proposed the reading, but it turned into a rare moment of true bipartisanship on the floor.

Such utter bullshit, by the Republicans for the grandstanding and by the Democrats for going along with it instead of calling it out as tax-dollar waster this showboating effort was.

..."calling it out as a tax-dollar waster." I erroneously omitted an "a." My apologies.

Otherwise, mind putting your thoughts into words?

 

[JBeukema]

An edited Constitution is not the Constitution.

...


List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

Constitution reading goes bipartisan - Simmi Aujla - POLITICO.com

Such utter bullshit, by the Republicans for the grandstanding and by the Democrats for going along with it instead of calling it out as tax-dollar waster this showboating effort was.

..."calling it out as a tax-dollar waster."

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY[/ame]

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

They did not read the Constitution. They left out parts they did not like. An edited Constitution is not the Constitution. It should have been read in the whole.

So we should have gone over the parts that were no longer in effect and without the amendments?

Did we elect our congressmen to write new laws or to be our national historians?

 

[DiveCon]

They did not read the Constitution. They left out parts they did not like. An edited Constitution is not the Constitution. It should have been read in the whole.

got any PROOF to back that up?

 

[WillowTree]

They did not read the Constitution. They left out parts they did not like. An edited Constitution is not the Constitution. It should have been read in the whole.

what did they leave out?

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

..."calling it out as a tax-dollar waster."

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY[/ame]

Well thank you for elaborating

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

They did not read the Constitution. They left out parts they did not like. An edited Constitution is not the Constitution. It should have been read in the whole.

got any PROOF to back that up?

They didn't read over the 2/3 rule. I think Old Rocks wanted that part read even though it was stricken.

 

[DiveCon]

They did not read the Constitution. They left out parts they did not like. An edited Constitution is not the Constitution. It should have been read in the whole.

got any PROOF to back that up?

They didn't read over the 2/3 rule. I think Old Rocks wanted that part read even though it was stricken.

lol is THAT what he's talkin about

ok

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

got any PROOF to back that up?

They didn't read over the 2/3 rule. I think Old Rocks wanted that part read even though it was stricken.

lol is THAT what he's talkin about

ok

I suspect Old Stonewall wanted to return to those good ol' days.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

They did not read the Constitution. They left out parts they did not like. An edited Constitution is not the Constitution. It should have been read in the whole.

what did they leave out?

Not sure what they read or not, but they most likely didn't read the original bill of rights (as the original bill of rights document has the original 1st and 2nd amendments which weren't ratified at that point). That's nitpicking though, and I'd guess they read the current constitution as it currently is. It is amazing how ignorant to the constitution many Americans are-the majority of people I know probably couldn't name the main two writers of the document. That's just sad.

edit: and it's ironic how the GOP got elected much on smaller government, when the "father of the constitution" was a large proponent of having a strong centralized government. Just find it funny is all.