Yesterday was an interesting day, folks, from a Constitutional perspective.
First, the GOP sponsored a reading of the US Constitution in the House, the first that has ever been done. Well, most of it, anyway. They didn't read passages that were later amended, such as the infamous "three-fifths of a person" passage. That's defensible... but not the next part.
You see, they skipped an entire section of the Constitution. They were taking turns reading sections of it, and when Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) finished his section, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) omitted reading Article 4, Section 4 and skipped straight to Article 5. Nadler finished reading normally, at the end of a sentence, and nobody, not even Fortenberry himself, noticed that he started reading in the MIDDLE of a sentence.
This is a clear signal that nobody was paying much attention to the reading. Think about it... NOBODY in the entire chamber realized something was wrong? NOBODY? That means they weren't paying attention. So the whole reading was a PR stunt, and will have no real effect on our US Representatives.
Of course, that was minor league compared to the NEXT mishap.
You see, two Republican Representatives were not in the chamber when they were sworn in, though there is videotape of them watching the swearing-in on TV, and raising their hands and taking the oath. The problem is that they have to be IN the chamber for it to count.
Normally, there would be no problem. They realize the error, get sworn in properly, and no harm, no foul. HOWEVER. Before they were properly sworn in, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) both took part in votes on the House floor and in committee.
See, that's a problem. We can't have just anybody sitting in and casting votes. At the time this happened, they were NOT US REPRESENTATIVES, because they had not been sworn in. That means all of their actions are null and void.
Big problem.
Personally, I think the only solution is to cancel out any business in which they took part, and do it over again. Have to, in my opinion.
The House is planning on fixing this by passing a resolution that removes their votes, officially, from the tally. No, that won't change the outcome, but that's hardly the point, here.
I think this is inadequate. Why? Because Congressmen are sheep, oft-times casting their vote based upon the position of the others. A vote in favor, for example, may be withheld and the member votes against... assuming his party is carrying the day and he needs to score political points with his constituents with a symbolic vote. So it is POSSIBLE that the mere fact these two voted might have affected someone's thinking.
See, that's why it's important not to make these kinds of bone-headed mistakes in the first place.
And I have to tell you, these two mistakes don't exactly fill me with confidence. I mean, they can't even read the Constitution and get sworn in without messing things up, and we're going to trust them to manage our NATION?
As I said, this doesn't fill me with confidence.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why is it OK to skip the parts that were amended out? Why not read the entire constitution including the amendments? I would use the same argument that you used concerning the Republicans who were not properly sworn before voting. The original constitution is worthy of thought and reflection, and understanding what was in the original, and why it was in the original, might improve someone's thinking.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my post, it's defensible. I didn't say it was "OK", just that it could be defended.
ReplyDeleteLook, for a history lesson, reading the original document is great. But to read it so as to understand the Constitution as it applies today, reading the changed bits isn't necesary.
I can argue it both ways, but cutting out the amended bits doesn't really bother me that much. I found the other issues MUCH more compelling.