iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Elizabeth B. Wydra

Elizabeth B. Wydra

Posted: January 6, 2011 12:13 PM

Today's reading of the Constitution on the House floor was surely intended by the GOP leadership as a Tea Party moment. But it looks like it has turned into a progressive moment instead.

Before the House started the reading, two Democratic congressmen stood up to inquire about the language the House leadership had deemed appropriate to read aloud on the House floor. While this elicited some laughter in the chamber -- oh, the conservatives must have thought with a chuckle, how delightful that the liberals are revealing that they are so ignorant of the Constitution that they need to ask for clarification on its language via parliamentary procedure! -- this was a significant, legitimate point. Rather than reading the entire Constitution, with all its flaws and corrections, the GOP-led House was going to read an "edited" version of our Nation's charter.

One cannot fault members of the House for being reluctant to read the portion of the original Constitution that declared slaves to be three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation, or the fugitive slave clause. But, as Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., so powerfully explained before the reading began today, the fact that these portions of the original Constitution were superseded by Amendments that abolished slavery and guaranteed equality is an important one. These Amendments -- as well as the Amendments to secure the vote for women and remove poll taxes from standing in the way of low-income voters, among others -- were the result of generations of men and women who gave blood, sweat, and treasure in the struggle to improve our founding charter and create a "more perfect union."

The original Constitution was a truly great document, but with serious flaws. Over the past two centuries, Americans have amended the Constitution to make it even greater. When you read the Constitution in its entirety, you cannot help but be impressed by the progressive arc of our constitutional history. By trying to sweep under the rug those portions of the Constitution that have been amended, the House GOP leadership attempted to obscure our progressive constitutional history.

"We the People" are the editors of the Constitution, not politicians from one party or another. And it is only by reading the Constitution in its entirety that the promise and power of that duty can be appreciated. It is a great sign of a constitutional awakening for progressives that two Representatives in the House stood to explain that to the GOP House leadership today.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 39
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:58 AM on 01/07/2011
The Constitution is a Living Document. Why did republicans think it was only appropriate to edit and read only parts they saw fit? Originally it was written for a small agricultural nation of thirteen states endure through the tests of time to apply to today's immense, modern highly industrialized society? This is because of the flexibility with which the Constitution was imbued. The framers knew that they could not possibly plan for every circumstance or situation. As such, they provided various methods by which the Constitution and its laws could be modified as society grew and changed. That is why the United States Constitution is known as a "living constitution," one which can adapt and be flexible as necessary. There are three ways in which the Constitution is a "living" document: the formal amendment process; the informal amendment process; and custom, usage, and tradition. The formal amendment process is how amendments are added to the Constitution. Article V details the two methods to propose an amendment and the two methods to ratify an amendment. This part of the living constitution has been a useful tool by which Congress may enact an amendment.
photo
drwtsn
Could I please get an upgrade to a macro-bio?
02:04 AM on 01/07/2011
They edit the Bible to agree with their opinions; why wouldn't they do the same with the Constitution?
12:24 AM on 01/07/2011
Much like they treat the bible, cherrypick the parts they like and ignore the rest.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ESerafina42
Abandoned by wolves, raised by Republicans.
08:02 PM on 01/06/2011
Hypocrisy, thy name is Boehner.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoannainPA
Realtor, ABR
06:12 PM on 01/06/2011
oh course they would edit it to there liking, we are talking about the GOP after all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ESerafina42
Abandoned by wolves, raised by Republicans.
08:03 PM on 01/06/2011
Well, to be fair, some of them probably like the part about blacks counting as 3/5 of a person - they're just not allowed to say so.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:56 PM on 01/06/2011
yea they just hate political correctness
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:10 PM on 01/06/2011
The Constitution was edited back in 1871. Then again in 1913 The Federal Reserve Act. Without We the Peoples consent. Please do your home work. Act of 1871.
photo
Epiphany2b
Always waiting for the light to dawn
07:17 PM on 01/06/2011
I see nowhere that the Constitution was edited in 1871. In 1870, the 15th Amendment was added to clarify the right to vote. In 1913, the income tax Amendment was added (16th) and the 17th, to elect Senators by popular vote. Are you talking about the Civil Rights act of 1871, which is a federal law, not in the Constitution? The Amendments have to be ratified by the states, so they are with the people's consent. How do you figure?
photo
Epiphany2b
Always waiting for the light to dawn
07:25 PM on 01/06/2011
Civil Rights Act of 1871 or the Force Act of 1871, was one of several important civil rights acts intended to protect African Americans from violence perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan?

The Force Act of 1871 provided for federal scrutiny of congressional elections. The act, passed during the Ulysses S. Grant administration, was intended to prevent election fraud in Southern states during the Reconstruction era?

Aha -- this one -- Act of 1871 is an Act of Congress, which revoked the individual charters of the City of Washington, the City of Georgetown, and the County of Washington and created a new city government for the entire District of Columbia, all without the authority of the Constitution.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:30 PM on 01/06/2011
The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:33 PM on 01/06/2011
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Welib
Peace on Earth!
04:50 PM on 01/06/2011
So what, the Republicans read THEIR opinion of the Constitution, not the real Constitution? 
 
It's difficult to read a document like this after the entire Republican party has wiped their arses with it the last 10 years.
 
Some of it surely must be unreadable by now and the Republicans will just rewrite the rest of it.
photo
HerrMonk
Fighter, Trainer, Nat.Sec.Consultant, Libertine
04:32 PM on 01/06/2011
Really?

They should have read the stuff that's been struck out and overturned?

This is just silly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ESerafina42
Abandoned by wolves, raised by Republicans.
08:12 PM on 01/06/2011
Yes, because, incredible as it may seem, there are people who believe that the Constitution is infallible and unchanging. So if they're going to read it, they should read the WHOLE thing, PLUS the amendments. They should also have to really LISTEN to it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:19 PM on 01/06/2011
I agree. What is so awesome about it is that our fore fathers new change would happen people change and made it so it could be change to reflect the will of We the People.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
shryock
It never is what it is anymore
10:01 PM on 01/06/2011
nothing has been struck out.
the constitution has been amended. many times.
why read the amendment if you do not read the original?
the original needed amending. it was amended.
it seems silly to read the amendment all by itself. an amendment always refers to something. why leave out the something?
especially if you are a strict constitutionalist. you should admit that the original document and agreement had flaws and needed fixing. and that the founding fathers allowed a method of fixing what needed fixing.
editing the original and then reading the amendment is just silly since it makes the amendment useless and unnecessary.
photo
HerrMonk
Fighter, Trainer, Nat.Sec.Consultant, Libertine
11:30 PM on 01/06/2011
So you all think they were skipping the stuff that was later "fixed" through amendments?

Most copies of the constitution include a full text, not all of which was adopted, or was amended pre-bill of rights through a different process. I was assuming that's what they were skipping.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:30 PM on 01/06/2011
The party of 1984.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Jerry Vasquez
A Unapologetic liberal
04:16 PM on 01/06/2011
It is like most things that the right hold dear. You must read the fine print or between the lines.
"We the People" really means the conservative,republican people. The left, the poor and minorities
are excluded. As with the constitution, it is the way that they interpret it, the way that they want it
that really counts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
04:00 PM on 01/06/2011
Send in the Clowns.

They will make you laugh and cry while they rob you blind.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DwH
01:00 PM on 01/06/2011
With republicans: Party First. Damn the history of the nation: if it makes them look 'wrong' they will obfuscate, ignore, or accuse.

Wrapped in a flag or the Constitution, their hypocrisy and lies will always shine through.