Friday, January 07, 2011

Reading the Constitution: Yes, they were serious.

Remember when a reporter from CNS asked then-Speaker (I love the sound of that) Nancy Pelosi by what constitutional authority had Congress passed the individual mandate in the Obama-Care bill? Pelosi's non-answer was, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

I have to say, I was having quite a bit of fun this morning as hundreds of members of the House of Representatives - Republican and Democrat alike - read the U.S. Constitution from the Preamble to the 27th Amendment.

I had the most fun watching the Dems get up there and read. There were times when some of them didn't look too happy about it. You could just see the seething going on behind some of these Democrats' eyes (Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas comes to mind) as they read their excerpt from the Constitution only because they knew if the Dems boycotted this reading, they would have been pilloried even more by the American public than they have already.

I texted a buddy of mine while the Constitution reading was going on and mentioned my observations about the Democrats to him. He responded back by saying, "It's like opening the Ark of the Covenant... their skin will melt off of their faces."

The proglodytes got all bent out of shape that Speaker Boehner insisted that the Constitution be read at the beginning of the 112th Congress. If I were Speaker, I would insist that this be done at the beginning of every new Congress. For God's Sake, they took an oath to uphold, protect, and defend this document; the least we can do is ensure that they know exactly what is in it.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson


Mrs. Bluebird said...

Love your post! And I think The Constitution does need to be read at the beginning of each and every congress. If I can carry a copy in my purse, then they can at least stand still long enough to read and listen to it.

Darren said...

A friend of mine, who claims to be moderately conservative but often leans left, justifies just about everything with the "necessary and proper" and the "general welfare" clauses. He gets somewhat flummoxed, though, when I ask, "If anything can be justified by those two clauses, then there really are *no* limits on the federal government. Do you think that's what the Founders intended? Why have a Constitution at all?"