Political Wrangling on House Floor Bogs Down Constitution Recitation
- Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:09pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
I don’t think this is what Republicans had in mind when they planned on reading the Constitution on the House floor. But shortly after Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) took the podium to begin reading the document, he was interrupted by two Democratic Reps. trying to make political points, and one Republican Rep. who felt compelled to point out their error. In the end, the beginning of the reading looked more like a political circus than a reverent reading of our founding document:
The constant interruptions created a sense of ordered frustration, with Goodlatte becoming visibly flustered near the end of the fiasco.
FoxNews.com explains in part what happened:
Even before Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., could begin reading the Constitution in the House of Representatives Thursday, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., raised a parliamentary inquiry, trying to ascertain exactly what would be read. Would it be the original Constitution, or the Constitution as it now stands, with certain portions superseded by amendments.
Showing the rust of Republicans not having presided over the House Chamber for the last four years, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, ruled that Inslee was not making a proper parliamentary inquiry, even though he was. Inslee then asked Goodlatte to yield for a unanimous consent request to find out the answer to his question.
Simpson initially ruled that out of order again, even though such a request is, in fact, in order. Since Goodlatte allowed it, ultimately, Inslee got to ask his question.
Somewhat in jest, Inslee pointed out that since the Republicans did not alert Democrats until now exactly what version of the Constitution would be read, Democrats had not had the appropriate 72 hours ahead of time to consider the language now before the House.
The last point by Inslee, that Democrats did not have 72 hours to read the Constitution language ahead of time, led to bellows of laughter in the chamber, perhaps mocking the Rep. for the claim’s absurdity.
Inslee’s political wrangling was followed by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), who rose to bring up the issue of race and slavery. He said that not reading the original unamended text could be considered offensive to African-Americans, as it would ignore their “long struggle.”
“Many of us don’t want that to be lost upon the reading of our sacred document,” Jackson said. “The three-fifths clause would not be mentioned.”
Yet the climax of the interruptions came from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) who correctly noted that since the Constitution contains an amendment process, it is the “amended” version that we go by and that would be read. He also railed against the previous Reps. for referring to amendments as “deletions.”
“There are too many who have fought and died for those amendments to call them deletions,” he said somewhat disgustedly.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 577 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 343 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 343 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (226)
takingonissues.com
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:44pmThese Democrats never quit, what is it with them? They just don’t get it, Americans are tired of their shenanigans which is why we fired lots of them last November…and hopefully Americans fire Mr Obama in 2012. Check out http://www.takingonissues.com for what Americans really need from their elected officials.
Report Post »48
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:44pmThe Repubs need to start telling the Democraps to sit down and shut up just as they did to the Repubs the lsat 2 years. No need to reach across any aisles here. I dont think that’s what the people voted for in November.
Report Post »nomad360
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:38pmDemocrats and muslims, they are both swimming in cesspool of pond scum. Neither group has any credibility. We suspected the dem’s were left leaning, but now we know they are ALL Communists and along with the muslims intend to destroy the United States of America. The time to take to the streets with weapons and reclaim our country is drawing neigh.
Wally Pieper
Report Post »311 N River Rd
McHenry, Illinois 60051
623 695 4654
wally@wallypieper.ws
DaytonConserve
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:51pmRemember, the pen is mightier than the sword. One blow of the sword affects only one opponent, one well turned phrase can convert many uninformed opponents to your cause.
There remain many Democrats who have yet to be enlightened as to how their party has been hijacked by the liberals/progressives/socialists/marxists/communists/athiests (many words that all describe the same mental condition) and for these persons, we must lead them out of the darkness. Having said that, there remains much work to be done within the Republican party in focusing their thought and effort on conservative constitutional values.
This battle for the soul of America can be won without firing a shot. Let us claim the victory!
Report Post »barrycooper
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:37pmThis is how they establish credibility for themselves after the farce of the last two years? All they have done is make obvious that trusting Democrats is a lot like trusting a 16 year old boy to drive the speed limit, or a 6 year old to stay out of the cookie jar.
Do they really think they are being funny in mocking the document upon which their jobs rest? The document from which our freedom and prosperity arose?
And if Rep. Jackson finds our system of government offensive, then he should not be participating in it. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not give his life so that clowns like him could make a mockery of this great nation. It is my belief that were he alive today, he would be livid with rage at what opportunists like Jackson and his father have made of his life’s work, which rested on personal responsibility, and a sense of the need to carry oneself with dignity. That’s why he was a Republican.
Democrats are still racist, so presumably he still would be today.
Report Post »Mikee T
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:17pm“Slavery is an abominatio to all humankind”….Benjamin Franklin….a member of the “Federalist Party” which…in my view…is basically modern day conservatism / reupublicanism…. People may consider Ben Franklin an 18th century liberal…..but, only because “traditional liberalism” shared many many conservativism views, visions and goals those days…….remember….the revolt was against mother U.K….and monarchy…etc… My point ? The angry white guys of the Federalist / Republican party were always sympathetic to the constitution…it’s citizens…and opposition to “tyranny” of any kind……. The modern day dems are opportunists only….and Yes….Dr. King was a Republican…..and then it got confusing because his father went to JFK, a dem, to get him released from jail….then, Daddy King (a preacher) changed his party to Democrat…..but, it’s all a bunch of crap…. The racist party was always the southern democrats………period…It was republicans or at least people that side with libertarianism, conservativism and like mided thinking (reasonability on ALL issues) that most resembles modern day conservative republicans….I mean, there is NO DOUBT which party is the party of the people and sovereignty….as long as we get rid of the RINOS….
Report Post »ottodiedacktick
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 12:36am@BARRYCOOPER Rep. Jackson was not trying to be funny. He wanted to show that our founding fathers were somehow blind or morally corrupt because he believes that only whites were involved in the slave trade. History shows that in the mutiny case of the slave ship Amistad in 1839, the leader of the mutiny was a ***** named Cinque. John Q. Adams litigated to exonerate all the Negroes and they were returned to Africa. However, once Cinque was freed, he set himself up as a SLAVE TRADER. As a black man, I contend that slavery could not have existed in America without the explicit aid of blacks from the African coast who captured the blacks who lived in the interior.
Report Post »shepiggy
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:34pmNot only should they read it on the house floor, but also in the senate and in the public schools
Report Post »flagbearer
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:32pmThe Democrats said the language was too difficult to understand. Did anyone have difficulty understanding it? I have a fifth grade book that might help if their reading comprehension isn’t that high.
Democrats have for decades demeaned and tried to make the Constitution irrelevant. The whole purpose of this delay today was to do the same. They pervert the text of the Constitution when it serves their purpose. Let us please be aware of Thomas Jefferson’s advice when interpreting the Constitution:
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, CONFORM TO THE PROBABLE ONE IN WHICH IT WAS PASSED.”
This is what the progressives/communists/socialists try to prevent from happening by saying the document is difficult to understand, irrelevant, written by slave holders, etc., etc., and don’t want the masses to read and understand its original context.
Report Post »Black3Actual
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:43pmDon’t forget Madison:
“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone is it the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers….What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.”
Report Post »Black3Actual
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:11pmOne more thought for Democrats to consider:
If the Constitution is irrelevant, then we can come send them all home since the Constitution is their only purpose and authority for being there.
(Sometimes I have to wonder what happened to reason and honor in this nation. Thank God for men like Glenn.)
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:23pmYou’re 3/5′s correct…
Report Post »Bryan
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:30pmHow about five million people march on the capital building, and show them how to read a document. If they were stupid, at least I could understand it, but they know exactly what they are pulling off.
Report Post »2gether
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:52pmNow that’s an idea, Bryan. We will hand out copies of the Constitution and everyone will read it outloud from start to finish. Gives me the chills just thinking about such a sight and sound.
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:29pmThis is just another reason why Democrats need to be voted out of office for good. If they don’t care about the Constitution then they need to leave this country. I believe that the Constitution is what this country was founded on, and God led the actions of our forefathers to draft the Constitution in the first place.
Report Post »This just shows that they have no inkling of what it is to be free. They think it is a right. It is not a right for individuals to be free its a privilege. It doesn’t come automatically, each and everyone has to fight for the privilege.
That is the only reason that we are free, that AMERICANS fought and gave their lives and bodies so that we could be free. Because if no one is willing to fight for freedom then it won‘t be long before we won’t have that privilege.
We need to keep a list of everyone that does this kind of thing so we are informed and take appropriate actions next time their come up for election.
Philo Beddoe
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:28pmReading the Constitution to the demunists is like exposing Dracula to sunlight
Report Post »Loki
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:27pm“The last point by Inslee, that Democrats did not have 72 hours to read the Constitution language ahead of time, led to bellows of laughter in the chamber, perhaps mocking the Rep. for the claim’s absurdity.”
Report Post »the wankers should have read it long before they would have even ran for office…
scguitar
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:25pmI wish people would wake up to the ignorant dems. I mean, the first concern is legit. But the second concern and Jesse Jackson’s concern are ridiculous and just liberal attempts to keep the constitution from being read. The Constitution to Liberals is like holy water to the devil
Report Post »usualsuspect
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:25pmI can’t count how many times President Obama has deleted the word God from the Bill of Rights, although it is well documented not one person had ever interrupted his speech’s and I could not imagine what the reaction would be for A outburst of such
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:21pmDidn’t the Obumbler say our motto incorrectly too? I think he said “In Diversity we trust”, or something along those lines, just goes to show you he knows nothing about our country…
Report Post »ChemTeacher
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:24pmI have long known that the far left is fueled solely on emotion and arrogance. This little fit or tantrum in opposition to the reading of the document that they have sworn to uphold and defend it the ultimate example of just how emotionally driven and childish these people are. Sure hope everyone is paying attention. They attacked the public read of THE CONSTITUTION. Can you imagine a more pathetic display. Is there not an adult among them to rain in these petulant children.
Report Post »Oldphoto678
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:03pmIn fact, there is no force on earth that will rain us in. Most certainly not the tea party.
Report Post »Black3Actual
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:24pmThe way I see it, by saying they need 72 hours to “consider” the Constitution, Democrats are actually admitting they have never read it — PERIOD!
Nice :-)
Report Post »flagbearer
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:40pmGreat point!
Report Post »DaytonConserve
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:33pmIn the paraphrased words of Nancy (the now FORMER Speaker of the House) we‘ll have to read it so you know what’s in it.
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:22pmI think this backfired on the Demunists. They are stoking curiosity about the Constitution which will prompt many Americans to read it for the first time. Once they do, the Demunist agenda will be exposed.
Report Post »PatriotDave
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:22pmAs usual, the progressive left, socialists and communists are so afraid of this document that they will do anything to detract from or destroy it. I say it should be read (rotate the versions) everyday at the beginning of the session, uninterrupted, in all it’s glory. As for the 72 hours, what a joke. The 72 hour rule (as I understand it) is for proprosed legislation, not the established founding document of the nation. It is the Constitution of the United States. I say if any member of the House, Senate or the President cannot answer basic questions about the document (in any form) without research, they be suspended until such time that they can answer these questions.
Report Post »MotherRedDog
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:22pmYeah, now I really like the democraps. They are sooooooooooooooo very bright!!!
Report Post »Gail
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:19pmI watched the entire reading. It was shocking and a new low……”they haven’t been able to read it ahead of time” the constitution that you took a vow to!?!?!?!?! Please…..now at least they have heard….that is IF they were listening!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:22pmI found that comment quite illuminating. An open admission that they’ve not read it. Though I suspect it was mostly in jest, or at least, that’s how it was taken.
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:45pmDid you also notice how EMPTY the chamber was during the reading……….
Report Post »beebacksoon
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:07pmGail: They don’t carry around ANY version of the Constitution because it will burn their eyes!
Report Post »If not for the interruptions, the Constitution would have already been read, and they all could have moved on to the next agenda. Great bi-partisn start! Com’on…time’s awastin!
Gonzo
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:18pmReading the Constitution to the Democrats reminds me of that scene in the Exorcist when the priest reads the rights of exorcism to Linda Blair. I think I actually saw Nancy Pelosi’s head spin around and Anthony Weiner spewing green pea soup!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:22pmThe Power of Jefferson Compels You! The Power of Jefferson Compels You! The Power of Jefferson Compels You!
:)
Report Post »wempj
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:26pmHahahaha….great! now I have THAT picture in my mind…it’s gonna give me nightmares I tell ya!
Report Post »republitarian
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:40pmAwesome. I love that image. This story was making me angry so thanks for the laugh.
The power of Jefferson compels you!
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:51pmHmmmm… http://www.theblaze.com/stories/discovery-channel-launching-exorcism-series/
Maybe they should have given the Discovery Channel exclusive access?
Report Post »———————————————————————————————–
“The power of Jefferson compels you!”
What would you have to sprinkle while saying that?
=)
katiefrankie
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:52pmHey, maybe they can show that on the new exorcism show on Discovery! I’d like to see that reenactment….
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:18pmI forgot to mention that Barbara Boxer was telling Boehner what his mother was doing and where she was doing it at. LOL
Report Post »rojotx
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:16pmDelay that is all they want, they think they are so “cute”. Read the Constitution, seems you pledged to follow it, so follow it!!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:15pm“Many of us don’t want that to be lost upon the reading of our sacred document,” Jackson said. “The three-fifths clause would not be mentioned.”
Apparently Mr. Jackson is pro-slavery. Who knew?
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:52pmWell he is a Democrat…
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:44pmOf couse he believes in keeping people enslaved .. otherwise he and his daddy, Al Sharpton, etc … would be out of a “job”.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:13pm3/5th clause is not pro-slavery, and Mr. Jackson was lamenting the fact that it would not be included in the reading (it was not).
Report Post »benrush
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:15pmI tell ya what, Congress, read all of it, all version of it, and read it weekly. Don’t do anything else BUT that until you understand it, and our country will fare remarkably well without your overlordships screwing us up.
Report Post »TennesseeConservative
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:51pmWell said Benrush.
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:35pmDems need to learn how to read first. And not just the Constitution but a dictionary as well so they can understand the definitions of the words, unlike ezra klien.
Report Post »chickenbig
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 10:53pm1st., I believe that every bill congress comes up with should be justified as constitutional on the house floor BEFORE its brought up for a vote. All bills must pass a constitutional examination to ensure compliance, or the bill shall be killed on the spot no questions. I believe thats the only way to stop these bastards from perverting our country from is design.
Report Post »The bill writers would have to take their copy of the constitution and show just where in it the rational for their new law is…FOR EVERY LAW THEY ATTEMPT TO PASS MUST 1ST PASS OUR CONSTITUTION. NO EXCEPTIONS….And 2nd., Eliminate as many congressional committees as possible and revert to straight up-or-down votes W/out powerful committees…Hows that sound ?
benrush
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:14pmJackson must not understand the 3/5ths clause at all, it was for purposes of taxation only. Read the 5000 Year Leap and you won’t make such elementary mistakes, Jackson.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:21pmIt was also a lever against over representation of Southern states in the House.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:24pmI thought the 3/5ths clause was in there so slave owners in southern states could not use their slaves as a means to acquire more power in the senate due to population.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:35pmDarn it Ghost I wish you would quit doing that, sometimes I think you pull the thought right out of my brain, write them more succinctly and post ahead of me ; )
Report Post »flagbearer
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:39pmIt was a compromise, and actually an anti-slavery statement. The southern states would never have ratified the Constitution without gaining representation of their “property.” In order to bring them aboard, the anti-slavery states compromised by giving them 3/5 representation. This was explained in my history books of the 1950s in the Deep South. But then, excuse me, I grew up in one of those states said to be “illiterate,” but since now living most of my life elsewhere, I have come to realize I was better educated than most. Thank you, my dear teachers and parents. I WAS taught U. S. history, world history, civics and economics, and not just one year, but over and over all the way through college. The classes were required. I have wept over the fact that my sons were not given the same kind of “inferior” education.
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:45pmNot to mention Jackson seems to think only blacks were slaves or counted as 3/5th even if they were free blacks. Ignorance to the fact that 3/5ths counted to all slaves because of the slave owners like the first slave owner (black man) claimed their slaves as property. Why must Jackson feel the need to ignore the strugle of Asians and Native Americans (not to mention whites were slaves too) from the bonds of slavery, he is such a racist.
Report Post »Mikee T
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:02pmYes….mostly about the electorate and southern “pro slavery” reps having an electorate which cannot actually vote……..Listen……….southern dems were the proponents of slavery and segregation….southern dems……okay ?? Are you listening ALL minorities out there ? All modern day liberals including our women out there ? It was the northern republicans that stood for all that is commonly decent to all men and women….ALL…..northern republicans that actually constituted and upheld the “All men are created equal….unailienable rights…etc”….Get it ? I would like to know how the progessive / ******** managed to somehow “dupe” our minority contingent in this country that the democrat party is for minorities…and particularly, for hispanics and blacks…. You know what happened ? The dems did a 180 degree turn around …why ? Votes Votes Votes….I’m sorry folks…history has made it clear……..The democrat party is the party of lies, cheats and miscreants..
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:20pmAgreed.
But my Daily Idiot Award goes to the Rep. from CO who spoke just before the reading saying that repealing Obamacare would be a violation of 14th Amend. because, if I remember correctly, people wouldn’t be equally eligible for health insurance, and that would be a violation of equal protection. Someone should explain to him that insurance policies are not laws, and are not written by the government (yet…).
Report Post »Plankchapel
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:57pm@Auntameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:35pm
Darn it Ghost I wish you would quit doing that, sometimes I think you pull the thought right out of my brain, write them more succinctly and post ahead of me ; )
Yeah, we need to do something about GHOST! :-)
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:11pmListen to Rep. Jackson’s comments before you speak. Rep. Jackson is speaking out to have the 3/5 clause INCLUDED in the reading. The clause was one of the “redacted” elements taken out of the reading due to misguided PC concerns. He perfectly understands what the clause means, and its significance to the constitution.
Report Post »Knee-jerk reactions that are made here when people assume what somebody says because of his party and his color cheapen the entire site.
Please read the articles and watch the videos. Don’t be so quick to make comments based on the headline. We need constructive conversation, not mindless chatter.
UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:20pmYou people drink too much Yankee Kool-Aide. As does Mr. Beck on this particular topic. There was no “conspiracy” in the US constitution to eventually limit slavery by the 3/5ths clause. Because, if it in any way guaranteed the eventual end of slavery, why is it repeated, nearly verbatim, in Article 1 Section 1-(3) of the constitution of the Confederate States of America? I quote:
(3) Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves. ,The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the Confederate States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every fifty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six; the State of Georgia ten; the State of Alabama nine; the State of Florida two; the State of Mississippi seven; the State of Louisiana six; and the State of Texas six.
Do you see anything similiar in there? Yeah? Well, it must have been a dang good conspiracy on behalf of the abolishionist Founders, because the whole 3/5ths situation carried over directly to the CSA.
Far from being just “those southern states” as Beck positioned tonight on his show, the following states were also slave states in 1790: Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. It would pay Beck to do some of his own study sometimes, particularly when he throws down on us southerners.
So, I find mysefl asking a very important question? Did the CSA believe the 3/5th clause would eventually end slavery for them? Or, is the whole modern interpretation (apology) of the US Constitution’s 3/5ths clause just a lie? If the modern apologists for the US clause are correct, then the south intended to end slavery the exact same way the founders did. Perplexing conundrum, isn’t it?
My favorite departure from the US Constitution found in the CS Constitution is as follows: Article 1 Section 8 (1)
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
Wouldn’t you like to see such an amendment to our constitution now? No bailouts, no corporate collusion. Read the whole document for yourself, its a good read.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
Know real history, and let the truth set you free.
Report Post »ottodiedacktick
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 12:01am‘***** slavery did not become rooted in VA until after 1681, w.hen according to the royal governor’s estimate, there were 3000 “blacks” and 15,000 white servants, out of a total pop. between 70,000 and 80,000. Included with the blacks was a considerable number of free Negroes, some of whom had become wealthy. In Northampton Co. there was a community of free Negroes who acquired hundred of acres by head-rights. They imported slaves from Africa and servants from England to such an extent that the assembly in 1670 declared it illegal for Negroes to own white servants. These Negroes had been emancipated by their masters, partly as a reward for faithful service, partly because of the feeling that is was wrong to hold any man a slave, once he had professed Christianity. p.90 Oxford History of the American People. S.E. Morison
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 7:05pm@ Unreconstructed, The 3/5 clause was a measure to limit slave state representation in Congress. This isn’t a discussion about the Confederate Constitution, and the reason Jeff Davis included it in his constitution has no bearing on why it was included in the US Constitution. Maybe he just used the 1860 version of Copy/Paste and forgot to edit it out. I don’t really care.
Report Post »Maybe you would like to enlighten us as to what you think the 3/5 clause means.
proudinfidel54
Posted on January 8, 2011 at 1:21amYep I saw that Beck episode too. Very enlightening.
Report Post »UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on January 8, 2011 at 10:32amTonyDarrington
My comment is directed toward the obvious revisionist myth surrounding the 3/5th clause being an instrument of slavery’s undoing. What bearing does the Confederate Constitution have on such an interpretation, quite alot.
What makes the Confederate constitution important at our current crossroads are the points of divergence between the two and how those align with present divisions. The points of convergence show us unrevised history where political philosophy was shared between the two. Such a simple review is eye opening to those who can bear the truth. To those who can’t, they create myth based on an extreme desire to self-justify.
I am as critical of the 3/5th clause as anyone you’d want to meet on either side of the fence. I do not seek to unduly justify either version of this clause in thier respective documents. I’ve read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers discussing the whole original debate.
The simple fact of the clause in the original US constitution was to somewhat placate both sides. When reviewing the situation at the time, it was more important to keep the Hamiltonian forces at bay with southern representation in the south being crucial in doing that. Had this compromise not been struck, we’d have been a mercantilist/socialistic utopia by the time the actual divisive war occurred.
The 3/5ths fraction was crucial in keeping just enough representation from the south to preserve the actual Federalist vision of the new nation intact and succeed in ratifying the new Constitution. Any fraction less would have shifted too much power to the Mercatilists, any more and the forces favoring the Articles of Confederation would have prevailed. Its just that simple.
It was a compromise of far greater significance that many are willing to admit. But, it had nothing to do with the eventual abolision of slavery. My point being, that if the original 7 states ratifying the CSA consitution included the same clause – they obviously saw no threat to slavery in it whatsoever.
Glenn Beck left a particuarly prickly burr under my saddle blanket with his show on the 4th. Honestly, that was the first time I had ever heard any notion that the 3/5th clause was a vehicle toward abolision. When looking over the history of the time, I see no evidence of any such idea. I would honestly like to know where this theory comes from, so I can study it for myself. I seriously doubt that the author of this idea realized that the 3/5th clause was contained in the CSA constitution.
One has to admit, the inclusion of this clause in the CSA constitution is a serious hole in any such theory of the 3/5th clause being what Glenn presented. So, I challenge anyone reading this: read the CSA constitution for yourself and tell me what part of it you don’t agree with, and its reciprocal equivalent in the US constitution and why you agree with in it more.
Warning: you may not like what you find – but you will find truth.
Report Post »Elrik68
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:14pmThese clowns have no shame.. Get OUT OF MY HOUSE!!!
Off with their heads….
@leftfighter
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:21pmThat is a dangerous and stupid sentiment. We are not violent and we don’t advocate violence.
This is not the French Revolution. It’s not even the American War for Independence.
Don’t mistake me. This *is* a war, but a peaceful, political war; not the shots being fired, “Off with their heads” kind of war you’re trying to brand us with.
Report Post »Al Gator
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:00pm@Leftfighter
And at what point do YOU draw the line and say: “This far, no farther?”
Remember one thing, those who are not prepared to “stoop to my enemy’s level” always get cut off at the knees. Sun Tsu.
My opinion is that ELRIK68 was being metaphoric, which to me is just A-Ok.
Too many people in the conservative camp are SOOO afraid of negative labels, that they gladly shackle themselves and then allow their opponents to control the high ground, dictate the terms of engagement, and WIN.
We HAVE to get over this stupidity of: “What will they think of us?”
Who cares? We are doomed no matter which way we turn, so why turn?
How about this: Stand your ground, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
They will slander you no matter how “nice” you try to be.
Sheesh.
Ps. I thought ELRIK68′s post was funny. But that’s just me.
Report Post »maryslittlelamb
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 1:49am@leftfighter
You don’t like “off with their heads”? How about “off with their pants!”
Lighten up, guy, what good is liberty if you can’t laugh once in awhile? Everybody but you understood it was hyperbole for effect.
Report Post »maryslittlelamb
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 1:55am@leftfighter
In all fairness, I do understand and appreciate your sensitivity to the comment. None of us ‘good guys’ want bloodshed and we all know the left will sieze anything they can to bludgeon us, metaphorically speaking.
Still “Off with their pants” is pretty funny, wouldn’t you say? :)
Report Post »chickenbig
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 10:36pm@Left… I would sooner have leftfighter comment on this “war” Than fight it as he /she seems to be lacking a bit ‘o Starch in the collar…“Off with their heads” and “Get out of our house” says ELRIK68…I say, don’t take ELrik68 so literally as he shows great spirit thats well needed, and I find it more contageous than the other flower power approach.
Report Post »chubbzbar
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:13pmWhy is everything a political football for the Dems? Let it go!!
Report Post »ishka4me
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:31pmhow dare they read the constitution inthe peoples’ house
Report Post »leftiesaredangerous
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:33pmAt least Jackson was trying to come off as respectful. However, he clearly doesn’t understand the 3/5ths clause.
This Inslee dude is exactly what’s wrong with Washington; bureauratic nonsense run amuck.
Also, didn’t the left just slam the Constitution or should I say the conservatives by saying the Constitution was not sacred, or rather, mocking the Conservatives by claiming they saw it as such? I wish they would make up their minds.
Report Post »helipilotnumber1
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:33pmThe Dems will do ANYTHING to make us conserv’s look like idiots. They have no respect for nothing of tradition. They have a plan for overturning our world. We are not organized as they. We must stick together now more than ever.
Report Post »LVMerrily
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:43pmLack of respect has stooped to new levels. The Progressives think the Constitution is passe and now the whole party doesn’t want to be reminded of their oaths. Take names and districts to remember them in 2012.
Report Post »solaveritas
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:43pmThey ALL got it wrong.
Report Post »The should read the Constitution as first written, AND the Amendments.
Trying to decide what exactly is superseded, and exactly what language should be not read requires some interpretation.
The Republicans should have know to read the original with amendments. The Dems should have known not to make a circus of it.
Do these guys have high school diplomas?
snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:53pmOne thing the Left and the Progressives fail constantly to understand is in their futile attempts to demonstrate how ‘righteous and correct’ they are about all things, they demonstrate to the rest of the world just how utterly clueless their reality is.
grandmaof5
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:57pmWell again the dems come off looking like the rude, crude and socially unacceptable people they try to be. Good job!
sWampy
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:12pmIf they control the house, why don’t they stop letting the liars lie, and when they try to lie, put them in jail for contempt of congress.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:15pmsolaveritas wrote:
They ALL got it wrong.
The should read the Constitution as first written, AND the Amendments.
Trying to decide what exactly is superseded, and exactly what language should be not read requires some interpretation.
The Republicans should have know to read the original with amendments. The Dems should have known not to make a circus of it.
______________________________________
Exactly on the money.
The beauty of our Constitutions is that as it is amended, our Constitution retains the original language, though it has been struck out. As an example, if this was done correctly, the Three-Fifths Clause remains and should be read as written, then the amendment changing the Constitution amends the prior reading of the (now struck out) Clause.
Report Post »timej31
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:16pmBecause Stalin would do this. Very simple.
Report Post »DaytonConserve
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:18pmIn the paraphrased words of Nancy (the now FORMER Speaker of the House) we‘ll have to read it so you know what’s in it.
Gotta love that proverbial door slap in the behind on her way out!
Report Post »click4cheapandeasyweb
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:22pmThis is just baby stuff the Dems love to play in.
Now, can we please get back to fixing this country (with or without the Dems).
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:43pmJesse Jacksons Jr short Bio. Hes not a product of the 60′s hes a by product of his father Rev Jesse Jackson Sr. Look at the last sentance of the short bio national field director for NRC in leyman’s terms a “Community (Agitator) Organizer”
Jackson was born March 11, 1965 in Greenville, South Carolina. He was educated at St. Albans School, Le Mans Academy, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, Chicago Theological Seminary and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Before entering the House, he was the national field director of the National Rainbow Coalition and a member of the Rainbow/PUSH Action Network.
Report Post »iLoveTransFats
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:08pmI’m so hungry
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:13pmChicago Theological Seminary <—–nice educational place Mr J. J Jr. (Jesse Jackson Jr) was educated at. Heres a recent notable name that spewed his BS there. (Jerimiah Wright)
June 28, 2010,
During a five-day seminar Wright taught last week in Chicago, he was back at it, claiming that whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America.
"White folk done took this country," Wright said. "You’re in their home, and they’re gonna let you know it."
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:17pmShowing support and respect for the Constitution in front of a Democrat is like throwing water on a witch.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:38pm“The last point by Inslee, that Democrats did not have 72 hours to read the Constitution language ahead of time, led to bellows of laughter in the chamber, perhaps mocking the Rep. for the claim’s absurdity.”
Proof that they were “unaware” of the document or the content? I agree CLOWNS!
Report Post »independentvoteril
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:55pmHas Jr. been around CHICAGO lately?? OH NO that’s right he was busy biffing some D.C. bimbo.. IF the blacks are offended I wonder what how proud the blacks were when they found out I do beleive I heard OFFENDED quite a bit.. and what about JR.’s wife wonder if SHE was OFFEND by Jr.s playing around..?? hummmm..
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:05pmthis is typical.they treat the very document that actually gives them their job as a joke. The only time libs ever want the Constitution around is when their friends from the ACLU start screaming that someones civil rights have been violated. Heres some advice to the morons on the left who hate this country and the Constitution- don’t be so quick to try and abolish it because once its gone it might not be around to protect you anymore. Then where are you gonna turn?
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:10pmJackson is a joke, just like his dad and his uncle al sharpton. Like joyless blowhard said’ “it will probably be the first time some of the congress has ever heard or read the constitution.”
At least they swore to protect and defend it right? Thanks for nothing A-holes.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:32pmExcuse me but for the last 4 years it has been the Republican who have been playing political football — so let the Democratic have their turn!! http://wp.me/pYLB7-uT
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:54pmCurator_JDR & rubintheartist
Report Post »Now we have 2 of you doing the marcrubin stuff. Enough to make me stop being here. Maybe once a day will suffice?
Miguel Sanchez
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:27pmSad isn’t it…besides this is apparently the first time it has been read on the floor of the house!! It should be a requirement to read it with all members present at the beginning of each congress.
Report Post »IVillageIdiot
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 8:56pmThe Dems reduce all that is the USA to mockery…. because they are following the “Plan”…..
Skousen observations of CPUSA/USSR goals of 1962:
=============================================
Goal #29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Goal #30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
Report Post »StMichelob
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:44pmIf Inslee needs 72 hours to read the Constitution, then he needs to be relieved of duty. EVERY ONE of our elected officials SHOULD know the Constitution front to back by heart. After all, how many of these turds are former lawyers?
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:29pmAnswer: Because they (Democrats) LACK SUBSTANCE!
Report Post »kennyg933
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 7:03amThis Gentleman from WI asks that the Gentleman from Il, the son of a race man, sit his 3/5th of an ass, later amended to a complete ass, down, and let the Americans read the Constitution. ‘K?
Report Post »Dave In Arizona
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 12:54pm@chubbzbar
Report Post »Duh!? Actually, this was just a demonstration to show the world how intellectually superior Dems are. Wonder why the Dems selected obviously Gong Show rejects?
quiet little lamb
Posted on January 8, 2011 at 4:45am. a better question is WHY DID THE REPUBS read 17 lines and then let someone else read it??? Jon Stewart did a great story on that.
Report Post »