Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they had read the version you're arguing they should have, you'd be proclaiming them racists, against women's suffrage, etc.
No matter what they did, you would find a fault with it. Anybody with an (R) next to their name cannot do anything that you agree with, no matter what. They could do A and you would say they should have done B. The next day, they could do B and you would say that A or C was the right thing to do.
[mod cut-- personal attack]
Ah, no. If they had read the complete Constitution rather than the abridged version they chose to read, I would not be "proclaiming them racists, against woman's suffrage, etc." I didn't see that any purpose would be served by reading the Constitution aloud other than publicity, and so I would object to the reading as a waste of time (taxpayer's time, and money, BTW). All I'm saying is, if they were determined to read it, why not read the whole thing?
Personally, I don't see anything in the Constitution as originally written and amended to be afraid of - it is what it is, and to pretend otherwise is silly.
Ah, no. If they had read the complete Constitution rather than the abridged version they chose to read, I would not be "proclaiming them racists, against woman's suffrage, etc." I didn't see that any purpose would be served by reading the Constitution aloud other than publicity, and so I would object to the reading as a waste of time (taxpayer's time, and money, BTW). All I'm saying is, if they were determined to read it, why not read the whole thing?
Personally, I don't see anything in the Constitution as originally written and amended to be afraid of - it is what it is, and to pretend otherwise is silly.
This is amazing. It wasn't the "abridged" version (there is no such thing). It was the "as amended" version. I am curious, do you have anything whatsoever worthwhile to say?
Ah, no. If they had read the complete Constitution rather than the abridged version they chose to read, I would not be "proclaiming them racists, against woman's suffrage, etc." I didn't see that any purpose would be served by reading the Constitution aloud other than publicity, and so I would object to the reading as a waste of time (taxpayer's time, and money, BTW). All I'm saying is, if they were determined to read it, why not read the whole thing?
Personally, I don't see anything in the Constitution as originally written and amended to be afraid of - it is what it is, and to pretend otherwise is silly.
Ummm, they did read the whole thing. Oh. You wanted them to read the parts that were changed. Why? Do you want them to read read every draft as well?
Is this article right? That the masterful political maneuver dreamed up by Congressional Republicans - the reading aloud of the Constitution - was an incomplete reading, leaving out some very interesting parts?
If they can't get this right - a simple reading of the ENTIRE Constitution - how badly are they going to screw things up legislatively?
I guess no one noticed that the omitted sections were parts that were either CHANGED by amendment or no longer pertinent.
Why read aloud a section that is no longer part of the compact?
"Ahem, please disregard the preceding section, that was deleted by Amendment XYZ..."
This is amazing. It wasn't the "abridged" version (there is no such thing). It was the "as amended" version. I am curious, do you have anything whatsoever worthwhile to say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Ummm, they did read the whole thing. Oh. You wanted them to read the parts that were changed. Why? Do you want them to read read every draft as well?
Take a step back, and imagine your reaction if it was a Democratic rather than Republican idea to skip over parts of the original Constitution. I'd imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be very impressive.
I have a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution that was distributed by my employer some years ago. It has the complete original text as well as all the amendments. It is, in fact, a copy of the complete Constitution. Anything less, anything with text removed, is incomplete.
Even online, the top hits from a Google search reveal websites with complete text.
When the Constitution is amended, no one goes back and erases the text that has been amended. The original text remains, and a notation is given that the selected text has been changed via an amendment.
Go to the National Archives in Washington and view the document for yourself, as I have done several times. The Republicans chose to disregard several sections of the original document, but without seeing/hearing the original text, a person unfamiliar with the Constitution would have no way of knowing why the section was amended.
Talk about ripping apart the Constitution!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
