Republicans Reading Amended Slavery-Free Constitution

[impik]

In their reading of the Constitution on the House floor, Republicans are leaving out the parts dealing with all the pre-Civil War unpleasantness about how blacks were to be treated.


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Un-fucking-believable.

[hedgehog]

1. So much for original intent!

[chelsea0011]

2. It's interesting that they would do that. Amendments to the Constitution were

needed to correct and clarify the Constitution and we know how much many republicants hate those amendments. It shows that the Constitution does indeed change and is alive and breathing, something they would like to ignore. to read it all in it's entirety would show them that it does indeed change and must change to be current.

[AtomicKitten]

3. The RW wants to edit the Bible too because - dang - they love it so much. nt

[The Wielding Truth]

4. I heard they were reading a revised version. They feed themselves and us lies.

No wonder they are so delusional and therefore dangerous in leadership positions.It is f^*%*ing unbelievable!

[The Wielding Truth]

5. Error came up ... dupe.. sorry

[JoePhilly]

6. Dishonest and Insulting.

But that is what the GOP is.

[joshcryer]

15. I thought it way too convenient how the President quickly read the orders to remove the birther...

....protester who called out Obama's citizenship. That shit was planned.

[JoePhilly]

20. Agree completely.

[yellowcanine]

7. This is probably appropriate given that they are the party of Richard "Expletive Deleted" Nixon.

Republicans and their cheerleaders at Faux News always leave out the inconvenient parts.

[RockaFowler]

8. What revisionists

"Notable Quotation from George Santayana
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

[slackmaster]

9. They actually think it's OK to amend the Constitution?

[joshcryer]

13. They think it's OK to omit ammended parts of the constitution, which effectively rewrites history.

[slackmaster]

23. Reading the superseded parts would be of historical interest, but not legislatively useful

IMO

[robcon]

10. Good for them... that's an excellent idea.

n/t

[joshcryer]

11. No, it's a terrible idea, they're rewriting history.

[onenote]

16. it depends on what the purpose of reading the Constitution is

If its to state the governing principles of the nation as they now stand, it makes sense.

If its to read a historical document, it doesn't.

Apparently the purpose was the former.

[joshcryer]

17. Yes, but as Jay Inslee pointed out, no one can say for sure if the ommissions were reflected...

...unless they were included with the relevant amendments that reflected them.

[robcon]

21. Who said they're "writing" or "re-writing" history?

They're reading a document, and they leave out some uncomfortable words. What's the big deal?

[onenote]

12. If that was the only change they made, it would be outrageous

But if they made other changes to account for other amendments, then its not particularly outrageous and, in many ways, makes sense.

[joshcryer]

14. No, it waters down the reasons for those ammendments. Many people don't know slavery...

...was in the original constitution.

[vaberella]

18. They like to keep it real. Real racist! n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. Of course they did!! n/t

[boppers]

22. They left in the 21 year-old-male-voter, though.

...along with the later amendments.

With slavery, not so much.