PDA

View Full Version : House Reading Constitution: Who read the Second Amendment?


Funtimes
01-06-2011, 11:41 PM
House Reading Constitution: Who read the Second Amendment?

I was just wondering, who got to read the Second Amendment when the House of Representatives read aloud the constitution?

I have been looking on cspan and a few other sites, but have not gotten to see a video of the whole event thus far. I think this was a great step in the right direction, and hopefully a large portion of those reps. paid attention to the actual words of the document.

Here's hoping for the Thune amendment to come on through again! One small bite at a time :cool2:

Dreaded Claymore
01-06-2011, 11:43 PM
What's the Thune amendment? *looks it up* Yeah, I hope it comes up again too.

jtmkinsd
01-06-2011, 11:59 PM
House Reading Constitution: Who read the Second Amendment?

I was just wondering, who got to read the Second Amendment when the House of Representatives read aloud the constitution?

I have been looking on cspan and a few other sites, but have not gotten to see a video of the whole event thus far. I think this was a great step in the right direction, and hopefully a large portion of those reps. paid attention to the actual words of the document.

Here's hoping for the Thune amendment to come on through again! One small bite at a time :cool2:

They didn't read any of the amendments...not even the Bill of Rights. I think they should've required all members to be present for the reading as well. Sooo many empty seats...but then again, why would they show up to hear a reading of something they don't believe in. :mad:

wazdat
01-07-2011, 7:18 AM
They didn't read any of the amendments...not even the Bill of Rights. I think they should've required all members to be present for the reading as well. Sooo many empty seats...but then again, why would they show up to hear a reading of something they don't believe in. :mad:

They read the amendments. The clips I saw on Foxnews last night were, the opening sentence (We the people...), the second and fourth amendment. Not sure who the representatives were.

Skidmark
01-07-2011, 7:44 AM
They read the amendments. The clips I saw on Foxnews last night were, the opening sentence (We the people...), the second and fourth amendment. Not sure who the representatives were.

Significant portions were skipped entirely, some by design, some by incompetence. It was a shallow publicity stunt, thankfully harmless.

CavTrooper
01-07-2011, 7:55 AM
Significant portions were skipped entirely, some by design, some by incompetence. It was a shallow publicity stunt, thankfully harmless.

Besides amendments that were repealled, what parts were left out?

Skidmark
01-07-2011, 8:27 AM
Besides amendments that were repealled, what parts were left out?

Besides? What do you mean? The Constitution is a living, breathing document... not some ancient artifact chiseled in stone. The fact that it can be amended, and portions of it repealed, demands that it be understood (and read aloud, in the case of yesterday's stunt) in its entirety, in the full context of what's there, now, and was once there, but no longer. The promoters of the superfluous exercise wished to spare themselves the embarrassment of reciting the 3/5 provision... no doubt out of shame, but perhaps also because it would have made abundantly clear what Thurgood Marshall famously said, that the Constitution is a "flawed" document.

And the incompetence?

The U.S. Constitution has still never been read in its entirety and in order on the House floor.

During Thursday morning’s “historic reading,” one member apparently skipped Article 4 Section 4 and part of Article 5 Section 1 when he or she inadvertently turned two pages at once, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was in charge of the reading, said on the House floor this afternoon.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/136475-entire-section-of-the-constitution-inadvertently-skipped-in-this-mornings-historic-reading

rodeoflyer
01-07-2011, 8:48 AM
They didn't read any of the amendments...not even the Bill of Rights. I think they should've required all members to be present for the reading as well. Sooo many empty seats...but then again, why would they show up to hear a reading of something they don't believe in. :mad:

I think they should require members to be at every damned session.

And none of the Barack Obama "present" voting crap either.

NoJoke
01-07-2011, 9:09 AM
This might be an exercise well worth the effort.
It would be nice to publish those who attended ;) and those who did not. :mad:

RRangel
01-07-2011, 9:30 AM
Besides? What do you mean? The Constitution is a living, breathing document... not some ancient artifact chiseled in stone. The fact that it can be amended, and portions of it repealed, demands that it be understood (and read aloud, in the case of yesterday's stunt) in its entirety, in the full context of what's there, now, and was once there, but no longer. The promoters of the superfluous exercise wished to spare themselves the embarrassment of reciting the 3/5 provision... no doubt out of shame, but perhaps also because it would have made abundantly clear what Thurgood Marshall famously said, that the Constitution is a "flawed" document.

And the incompetence?

The U.S. Constitution has still never been read in its entirety and in order on the House floor.

During Thursday morning’s “historic reading,” one member apparently skipped Article 4 Section 4 and part of Article 5 Section 1 when he or she inadvertently turned two pages at once, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was in charge of the reading, said on the House floor this afternoon.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/136475-entire-section-of-the-constitution-inadvertently-skipped-in-this-mornings-historic-reading

What, no more pretense? I guess you saw your chance to interject the tired old mantra of the Constitution “is a living document.” So in turn is your belief that the Constitution is “a flawed document”? Please enlighten the forum. And what makes one so determined to denigrate the simple reading of the Constitution? It would seem that the only people who object are those who's ideology is stymied by it.

Lulfas
01-07-2011, 9:43 AM
They didn't read any of the amendments...not even the Bill of Rights. I think they should've required all members to be present for the reading as well. Sooo many empty seats...but then again, why would they show up to hear a reading of something they don't believe in. :mad:

Boehner, the guy who called for it to be read, couldn't be bothered to stay. He was giving a press conference during the reading. It was just a bit of political theater.

The Shadow
01-07-2011, 9:47 AM
They didn't read any of the amendments...not even the Bill of Rights. I think they should've required all members to be present for the reading as well. Sooo many empty seats...but then again, why would they show up to hear a reading of something they don't believe in. :mad:

They read the amendments. The clips I saw on Foxnews last night were, the opening sentence (We the people...), the second and fourth amendment. Not sure who the representatives were.

They did read the Bill of Rights and the whole thing is posted on You Tube. Congressman Guinta, a republican from New Hampshire, read the second amendment. And apparently he is pro-gun.

oWAhV3Fz7T0&feature=iv

xenophobe
01-07-2011, 11:05 AM
Besides? What do you mean? The Constitution is a living, breathing document... not some ancient artifact chiseled in stone.

Actually, it's an ancient artifact scribbled on an animal hide. So it was actually living and breathing at one time. :p

I think most of us can agree on one thing, it needs a re-boot.

dantodd
01-07-2011, 11:11 AM
I think most of us can agree on one thing, it needs a re-boot.

I think you are wrong.

Flopper
01-07-2011, 11:48 AM
The Constitution is a living, breathing document...

No it's not.

Plus, you're misunderstanding what the non-originalists mean when they say "living breathing Constitution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution#Living_constitution

WatchMan
01-07-2011, 11:54 AM
The promoters of the superfluous exercise wished to spare themselves the embarrassment of reciting the 3/5 provision... no doubt out of shame, but perhaps also because it would have made abundantly clear what Thurgood Marshall famously said, that the Constitution is a "flawed" document.


If the reason they did not read the 3/5 provision aloud is because of shame then they do not understand the intent of the 3/5 provision. It actually helped enable the abolition of slavery. In 1851 Frederick Douglass even noted that.

Mikeb
01-07-2011, 11:54 AM
Actually, it's an ancient artifact scribbled on an animal hide. So it was actually living and breathing at one time. :p

I think most of us can agree on one thing, it needs a re-boot.

What does that mean? Seems to me that the people who are sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution should hear the words now and then. Heck it doesn't take that long to read, perhaps they should hear it every time they meet.
Mike

Skidmark
01-07-2011, 4:49 PM
What, no more pretense? I guess you saw your chance to interject the tired old mantra of the Constitution “is a living document.” So in turn is your belief that the Constitution is “a flawed document”? Please enlighten the forum. And what makes one so determined to denigrate the simple reading of the Constitution? It would seem that the only people who object are those who's ideology is stymied by it.
Of course it's a flawed document - if it were perfect, it would not have needed amending. I agree the "living breathing document" phrase is an inelegant turn of words. But the fact remains, it is subject to revision, when we (the people) see a compelling need to correct and amend it. Ask your mothers and sisters and wives whether the Constitution should have been amended on their behalf.

But how is anyone's ideology stymied by the reading of our Constitution? :confused:
Boehner, the guy who called for it to be read, couldn't be bothered to stay. He was giving a press conference during the reading. It was just a bit of political theater.
EFZ, a gimmick through and through.
If the reason they did not read the 3/5 provision aloud is because of shame then they do not understand the intent of the 3/5 provision. It actually helped enable the abolition of slavery. In 1851 Frederick Douglass even noted that.
I don't know exactly why they skipped that part... I assumed the promoters of the stunt were uncomfortable with reading aloud that provision. It shows the general GOP approach to the 112th Congress, however, in that they'll choose and pick which sections of the Constitution to read aloud, just as they are picking and choosing which campaign promises to keep.

dfletcher
01-07-2011, 4:57 PM
Besides amendments that were repealled, what parts were left out?


I'm guessing the "3/5s a person" and "Indians not taxed" might not have gone over too well - probably both passages were temporarily misplaced ... :rolleyes:

xenophobe
01-07-2011, 5:04 PM
I think you are wrong.

I am not a fan of a huge federal government... 14-50+ trillion dollar deficits growing insanely larger and laws that are so overcomplicated that lawyers are required for nearly every aspect in life and government stepping in so many places where they were not designed to be. We are no longer a true democracy. We are almost fully owned by special interests and private corporations. I'm sorry you don't agree.

Keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights intact.... but we need a reboot.


What does that mean? Seems to me that the people who are sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution should hear the words now and then. Heck it doesn't take that long to read, perhaps they should hear it every time they meet.
Mike

I agree, every politician should have the Constitution and Bill of Rights memorized. They should also know the underlying reasoning and debate as to why the rights were outlined as they were. There should be no debate as to their meaning and why they were implemented... as to agreeing or disagreeing about their validity can be another matter altogether.

zoglog
01-07-2011, 5:07 PM
looks like more grandstanding and waste of taxpayer dollars. What congress is good at. Make no mistakes, you are all just mere pawns in this large game of powerful interests.

Operator
01-07-2011, 5:17 PM
Actually, it's an ancient artifact scribbled on an animal hide. So it was actually living and breathing at one time. :p

I think most of us can agree on one thing, it needs a re-boot.

I disagree as well. I think we need to re-learn how to use it. Best thing about the thing is that it was never meant to include everything, I think the founding fathers knew that it would be impossible. It was barley possible to get the thing ratified in the first place. But by allowing amendments to be made, we would be able to add and take away as society's needs evolved. Instead we continually ask the courts to decide what the constitution says about subjects and situations that had never been considered at the time it was originally written.

I would go into examples, but they are controversial and would most definitely hijack the thread.

I wish they would read the constitution or part of it at every meeting. Stupid jerks need to remember why they are there in the first dang place.

brando
01-07-2011, 5:38 PM
They probably skipped the 18th Amendment too. ;)

The Constitution is amazing, but it seems these days that a great many people treat it and the Founding Fathers with the level of willful ignorance you find in Fundamentalists. It and they were neither perfect saints nor infallible, but like most people had their flaws and needed adjustment throughout time to reflect changes in society.

N6ATF
01-07-2011, 5:52 PM
It was barley possible to get the thing ratified in the first place.

And barley was most certainly to blame!

Mikeb
01-07-2011, 6:18 PM
And barley was most certainly to blame!

I did laugh out loud... "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
Ol' Ben

take care
Mike

Falstaff
01-07-2011, 6:43 PM
We are no longer a true democracy. We are almost fully owned by special interests and private corporations. I'm sorry you don't agree.

Keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights intact.... but we need a reboot.

.

We never were and hopefully never will be a "true democracy", we are a republic. You obviously don't understand the distiction or you wouldnt be saying that. And as far as "reboots", if you're referring to a CONCON, that is very dangerous, EVERYTHING'S on the table in a CONCON.

Skidmark
01-07-2011, 7:17 PM
I did laugh out loud... "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
Ol' Ben

That would be an amendment I bet we could all get behind :D

xenophobe
01-07-2011, 10:48 PM
I disagree as well. I think we need to re-learn how to use it. Best thing about the thing is that it was never meant to include everything, I think the founding fathers knew that it would be impossible. It was barley possible to get the thing ratified in the first place. But by allowing amendments to be made, we would be able to add and take away as society's needs evolved. Instead we continually ask the courts to decide what the constitution says about subjects and situations that had never been considered at the time it was originally written.

I would go into examples, but they are controversial and would most definitely hijack the thread.

I wish they would read the constitution or part of it at every meeting. Stupid jerks need to remember why they are there in the first dang place.

We never were and hopefully never will be a "true democracy", we are a republic. You obviously don't understand the distiction or you wouldnt be saying that. And as far as "reboots", if you're referring to a CONCON, that is very dangerous, EVERYTHING'S on the table in a CONCON.

Wow, computer terminology fails you both. Reboot =/= new installation.

A reboot is when you turn it off and turn it back on. Where did I say format hard drive, install new operating system. Geez. :rolleyes:

And where the hell did I say Constitutional Convention. Way to go putting words in my mouth. Really.

And yes, representative republic, blah blah... it's really not working anymore. America is barely 1st world now. Yes, lets just maintain status quo. /facepalm

JimWest
01-07-2011, 10:57 PM
Actually, it's an ancient artifact scribbled on an animal hide. So it was actually living and breathing at one time. :p

I think most of us can agree on one thing, it needs a re-boot.

No, the only thing that needs a reboot are the "A-holes" in Congress that do not have 1/5th of the intelligence of the people that wrote it (the Constitution).

xenophobe
01-07-2011, 11:33 PM
No, the only thing that needs a reboot are the "A-holes" in Congress that do not have 1/5th of the intelligence of the people that wrote it (the Constitution).

I have no problem with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Please quote me anywhere I've even suggested that. Have you ever tried to read through tax, property, civil or penal codes? And what about the state of government as it is today?

Bzzzt. Sorry. Government is no longer working how it was intended. It's been hijacked.

Hunt
01-08-2011, 1:05 AM
Actually, it's an ancient artifact scribbled on an animal hide. So it was actually living and breathing at one time. :p

I think most of us can agree on one thing, it needs a re-boot.

I disagree, I don't like the idea that 9 people wearing robes can vote away my unalienable rights, or that there is a group of people I have never made a private contract with that can use force against me if I don't obey their orders. I much prefer the Shire Society Declaration, wherein the individual owns his own body, life and products thereof, you are not obligated to any contract you have not voluntarly agreed to, the initiation of force is considered illegal and all law is based in private contracts that being created between consenting and voluntary parties.

steadyrock
01-08-2011, 6:05 AM
Is this really a 2A-related discussion at this point?

yellowfin
01-08-2011, 6:35 AM
Until we demand and get judges who will overturn Wickard, we will accomplish nothing of substance outside of our 2nd Amendment efforts.

Tarn_Helm
01-08-2011, 1:22 PM
Besides? What do you mean? The Constitution is a living, breathing document... not some ancient artifact chiseled in stone. The fact that it can be amended, and portions of it repealed, demands that it be understood (and read aloud, in the case of yesterday's stunt) in its entirety, in the full context of what's there, now, and was once there, but no longer. The promoters of the superfluous exercise wished to spare themselves the embarrassment of reciting the 3/5 provision... no doubt out of shame, but perhaps also because it would have made abundantly clear what Thurgood Marshall famously said, that the Constitution is a "flawed" document.

And the incompetence?

The U.S. Constitution has still never been read in its entirety and in order on the House floor.

During Thursday morning’s “historic reading,” one member apparently skipped Article 4 Section 4 and part of Article 5 Section 1 when he or she inadvertently turned two pages at once, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was in charge of the reading, said on the House floor this afternoon.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/136475-entire-section-of-the-constitution-inadvertently-skipped-in-this-mornings-historic-reading

Ah, the odor of flagrant incompetence . . . let the dung of our Federal representation emit the odiferous efflux of their sycophantic stench.

I just wish this sort of thing is all they would do, a sort of "Special Olympics" event in which they do no good but do no harm either to our freedoms.