The House Republicans are Going to Read the Consitution: That's Amazing!!! But will they understand it

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

The lastest grandstanding trick by the new House Republicans will be to read the US Constiuttion.  This might serve as an epiphany for some new and old Republican members.  Michele Bachman may need a dictionary for some words like "electors" or "citizen".  The one thing that most of us forget is that the original Consittution does not include the last 27 Amendments.  Which makes me wonder if they were going to include those.  Some things that have changed over the years :

 

Article I:

1.  Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by addign the whole number of free persons, including those bound for Service for a Term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.  (fancy language that was eliminated by the 16th Amendment, meaning they can have an income tax, and the 14th Amendment eliminated the 3/5 all other persons.

2.  The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 2 Senators from each State, Chosen by the Legislature thereof,  (meaning they are not accountable to the people and eliminated by the 17th Amendment)  I think it might be interesting to point out that Lincoln had won a non-binding election against Stephen Douglas in 1858, but was denied the seat since it was the legislature that chose the Senators for the state. 

When it does come to Section 9, I am a bit worried because I do think that they are more than too willing to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus when it suits them and for whatever reason.

Article II

it will be surprising to many that the House Republicans would advocate a return to the old system of counting electoral Votes.  I mean Al Gore and John Kerry would have been VP along time ago.  I really would not want a return to this. Luckily we have the 12th Amendment

When it comes to Article V I would be interested in their opinion on the Amending process.  I mean the foolish founder wrote right in there how the Constitution could be changed.  I am sure that was an oversight. Of course the process is so cumbersome that it has happened only 27 times in the last 230 years.

These are just some of the observations that causes one to just look at the Republicans and question what planet they have come from, especially Ms Bachman who could not understand where in the Constitution the power to have a treasury and a treasury secretary lied.  It’s in the implied executive powers by the way and fully interpreted by John Marshall in the court case McCulloch V. Maryland. 

I am wondering if they will read the amendments and the Supreme Court cases that have interpreted the legal aspects of the various amendments.  It will be an interesting exercise in futility, but then again the Republicans are not for progress they want to go back to the old oppressive days.  Yes, those days went women were property and all minorities were 3/5 all other persons.  This would be funny if it were not so tragic.