"Strict Constructionists" EDIT the Constitution before reading it.

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010602807.html

The chamber's Republican leaders - who organized the first-of-its-kind event - had touted the reading as a way to bring the country back to its political roots. But they didn't want to go all the way back: Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was running the procedure, said lawmakers would read a Constitution that had been edited to remove sections negated by later amendments.

"Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read," Goodlatte said. He said he had consulted the Congressional Research Service, among others, in choosing this version of the document.

Those changes meant the erasure of the 18th Amendment, for instance, which created Prohibition (it was later repealed by the 21st Amendment). It also meant that legislators would not read the original language from Article 1 that tacitly acknowledged slavery.

That language, called the "three-fifths compromise," stated that representatives would be parceled out based on a count of all free inhabitants, excluding Indians, and "three-fifths of all other persons." Those persons were understood to be slaves.

Can't make this stuff up. I guess original intent not good enough for the tea-bagging crew.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
So...you're outraged over completely irrelevant parts of the document not being read?

They're reading the parts that apply today. They're not editing it - they're just accounting for the edits that have already been made.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
So senseamp is complaining because he thinks that black people actually are 3/5 of a person? Can't make this stuff up.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
So Original intent of the Constitution is irrelevant? NICE :)
It is when it has been overruled and the document amended. An amendment is as solid as the original document. If measures have been passed that make parts of the document obsolete, then they are irrelevant.

Why are you so angry about slavery (outlawed) not being talked about in economic terms, and prohibition (repealed) not being addressed?
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,921
4,491
136
Im socially liberal and fiscally conservative and i have no problem with not reading parts that have been replaced by amendments. That is the whole point of amendments. What does original intent have to do with it?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I've got no problem with that. Is it just making fun of the people who claim the idiotic 'original intent' ideology? If so it's misplaced IMO, they accept amendments.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Sense is on a roll today, Hep C patients not having transplants paid for by the government, and not reading irrelevant, amended parts of the Constitution, what the hell is going on in this world!?!?!
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
We don't expunge text from the Constitution. It's part of the document, even if it's superseded by the following amendments.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
We don't expunge text from the Constitution. It's part of the document, even if it's superseded by the following amendments.
It's not being expunged[i/]. It's being read by people who are not being endorsed by the current Administration. It's not like they went to the document in the national archives and put white-out on those parts.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
We don't expunge text from the Constitution. It's part of the document, even if it's superseded by the following amendments.

No one removed them from the text, they didn't read them because they are irrelevant. If even Craig234 doesn't agree with you than you are WAAAAY out there.

The chamber's Republican leaders - who organized the first-of-its-kind event

Kind of sad. They should be reading it aloud at the beginning of each new Congress.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
We don't expunge text from the Constitution. It's part of the document, even if it's superseded by the following amendments.

Reading the parts in effect only makes sense. They're not removed because they're not read. This isn't a 'history of the constitution' speech.

Of course it's time-wasting garbage politics, trying to claim they follow the constitution and the other side doesn't while they screw the public, but that's another issue.

They're always happy to wrap themselves in some vote-getting garb to LOOK good for the voters while the DO good for the donors.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I've got no problem with that. Is it just making fun of the people who claim the idiotic 'original intent' ideology? If so it's misplaced IMO, they accept amendments.

amendments are a part of 'original intent' so your stupid post makes no fucking sense.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,486
20,011
146
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010602807.html



Can't make this stuff up. I guess original intent not good enough for the tea-bagging crew.

I think this whole thing was just a bit over your head.

df85j.gif
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
I always wonder what happened to the chick in that...was she as F'd up as the OP? I doubt it, but am curious...
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,486
20,011
146
I always wonder what happened to the chick in that...was she as F'd up as the OP? I doubt it, but am curious...

Actually she came out of it relatively unharmed. Little shiner is all, IIRC.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
So Original intent of the Constitution is irrelevant? NICE :)

No, dumbass, the original intent of the Constitution explicitly included the amendment process (Article V). :rolleyes: It was NEVER intented to be a fixed document. This whole thread is such an epic failure.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
this thread :confused:
Well, mindless outrage was on the menu, either for deleting superseded portions ("editing and ignoring original intent") or for reading superseded portions ("wasting valuable time".)

I always wonder what happened to the chick in that...was she as F'd up as the OP? I doubt it, but am curious...
That would take WAY more than a surprise high speed melon to the face. The melon isn't even as F'd up as the OP. Parts of the melon retained their integrity. Small parts. Very small parts. But still.
 
Last edited: