The U.S. House of Representatives will commence its 112th session tomorrow by reading the U.S. Constitution. This act has been called a “dog-and-pony show” (Alan Colmes on his blog), “meaningless political theater” (the National Examiner), a “gimmick” (Ezra Klein, on MSNBC ), a “stunt … arrogant” (the Fort Lauderdale SunSentinel), an “empty, pompous, self-righteous act … racist” (the New York Times), “ritualistic … total nonsense … propaganda” (Jerry Nadler, congressman from New York City), a “tea-party fetish” (Rachael Maddow on her blog), a “symbolic sop to the tea party” (LA Times), “a total waste of time” (Time Magazine), an “air-kiss to the tea party” (Barney Frank), and “a bit of pageantry” (The Daily Kos). And I found these numerous brick bats in only about 20 minutes of searching on Google.
Does the majority of the Democrat party hate the Constitution? I certainly hope not. But, if in fact many of them do, may I suggest that they refuse to take their oaths of office when they are sworn into federal office. After all they then do swear (right hand raised and left hand on the Bible) “to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.” And, if they do refuse this oath, then they should not be allowed to take their elected offices. So there! … simple enough?
Addendum: Speaker Boehner did a brilliant thing yesterday. He made all the members of the House reswear their oath of office. See: HERE. I wonder how many Democrats actually followed his direction ... or had their fingers crossed?
2 comments:
The constitution is a nice document, but most here and now folks think of it as a guide, since much of its wording is open to more than one interpretation, as history has shown.
Matter of fact, the Supreme Court has, from time to time, fetched the meaning of this fine document directly from the tookus of five or more of those robed in black.
Post a Comment