Paul BoudreauTwo updates re:My Last Post on the Constitution
January 6th 2011 18:52
:
Furthermore
Hi Again. This one will be brief.
First, to correct an error, the Constitution has been entered into record in Congress twice in the past but, contrary to what I wrote below (or above, or wherever my last post appears relative to this one in your mind) never before read on the Floor.
Secondly, according to the Old Grey Lady, there was a bit of a kerfuffle before the reading of the Constitution with Republicans announcing they planned on excising any portions which had been later invalidated by amendment. This prevented the unnecessary awkwardness of having to acknowledge that the sacred text explicitly mentions slavery and refers to them as three fifths of all other persons, ignores women's rights, and avoids the whole Prohibition debacle altogether. This fits right in with the kind of historical revisionism that Republicans are going for with their constitutional love-affair, as by ignoring areas of the document that have changed over time as attitudes and the needs of society have changed they can pretend that, rather than being a living, evolving document reflecting a nation in constant flux and growth, it is a strict code of laws written in stone to be worshiped, obeyed, but not questioned or analyzed. It this very type of intellectual dishonesty that makes the Tea Party and its ilk so dangerous.
PSRB
First, to correct an error, the Constitution has been entered into record in Congress twice in the past but, contrary to what I wrote below (or above, or wherever my last post appears relative to this one in your mind) never before read on the Floor.
Secondly, according to the Old Grey Lady, there was a bit of a kerfuffle before the reading of the Constitution with Republicans announcing they planned on excising any portions which had been later invalidated by amendment. This prevented the unnecessary awkwardness of having to acknowledge that the sacred text explicitly mentions slavery and refers to them as three fifths of all other persons, ignores women's rights, and avoids the whole Prohibition debacle altogether. This fits right in with the kind of historical revisionism that Republicans are going for with their constitutional love-affair, as by ignoring areas of the document that have changed over time as attitudes and the needs of society have changed they can pretend that, rather than being a living, evolving document reflecting a nation in constant flux and growth, it is a strict code of laws written in stone to be worshiped, obeyed, but not questioned or analyzed. It this very type of intellectual dishonesty that makes the Tea Party and its ilk so dangerous.
PSRB
| 22 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog