Friday, January 7, 2011

Progressives Want to Read Slavery Back Into Constitution

A couple of sections of the Constitution were inadvertently omitted from yesterday's reading on the floor of the House of Representatives:
The U.S. Constitution has still never been read in its entirety and in order on the House floor.

During Thursday morning’s “historic reading,” one member apparently skipped Article 4 Section 4 and part of Article 5 Section 1 when he or she inadvertently turned two pages at once, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was in charge of the reading, said on the House floor this afternoon.

Goodlatte returned to the House floor at 2:23 p.m., more than two hours after the error occurred, read the missing sections, and placed them officially in the congressional record.
But progressives are pissed that sections no longer part of the document were not read, for example, the three-fifths compromise, formerly of Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, dealing with the compromises over slavery. It's obvious why that's important to lefties. Rather than celebrate and honor the history of this nation's founding, they seek to use sections no longer part of the document to hammer those with whom they disagree. See Rachel Maddow, for example, "Three-Fifths of a Reading." Perhaps even worse is listening to this discussion with Keith Olbermann and Yale political scientist Akhil Reed Amar. Here what progressives despise is limited government, a concept that never leaves the lips of either of these men. Clearly such a complicated thing as the founding can be interpreted even twisted to fit whatever framework the advocate wishes. But to make the Founders into modern-day progressives is preposterous. And I shudder to think of the students who set foot into this professor's classroom. What an agenda! Contrast that to the discussion by Peter Berkowitz, "What Would a Return to the Constitution Entail?" (via Instapundit).

Fortified by historic Republican electoral gains at the federal and state levels last November, Tea Party activists and the new generation of Republicans led by rising star freshman Senator Marco Rubio, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor have reaffirmed their intention to return to the Constitution. To underscore that intention, Republican representatives kicked off the 112th Congress with a piece of provocative and potentially instructive political theater by, for the first time in the nation’s history, reading aloud the 224 year old document on the House floor. But what does such a return entail?

Some hard-driving conservatives see it as an opportunity to restore simplicity and purity to democratic self-government. Meanwhile, many influential progressive politicians and pundits are determined to hear in talk of return a reckless and reactionary repudiation of the modern welfare state.

In fact, an informed and thoughtful return to the Constitution will take seriously the devotion to individual liberty and limited government shared by the original Federalist proponents of the Constitution and their Anti-Federalist opponents. It will learn from the intricately separated and blended political institutions that the Constitution established to impose restraint and allow for energy and efficiency. And it should culminate in the recovery of the spirit of political moderation that the Constitution embodies and on which its preservation depends.
My sense is this is the appropriate way to read both the Constitution and the goals of the tea party. Compare that to Professor Amar's elaboration of the number of times taxation is mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8. The distinction between constitutionally enumerated powers and political sources of government expansion are completely ignored. Nothing there requires the erection of Leviathan. Again, I'm astounded how aggressive Professor Amar wants to tamp down discussion of the sources of liberty in federalism and the dispersion of power. I mean, to do so is practically --- wait for it --- RAAAAACIST!!

Time for Some Small-Government Optimism … and to Repeal ObamaCare," and "In U.S., 46% Favor, 40% Oppose Repealing Healthcare Law" (via Memeorandum).


dave in boca said...

Actually the leaving out of some parts of the Constitution was very "advertent," because in an effort to reach comity, some sections on slavery and other sections overcome by repeal [The Volstead Act, eg] were left out.

I think the whole thing should have been read out loud, carbuncles and wens and whatever...., despite Fatboy Nadler and other marxist idiots like Wiener and McDermott.

Steve said...

Idiots like Olbermann use the term liberal in the wrong way. Of course our founding fathers were classical liberals, who believed that freedom was a right and that government should be limited to protecting those rights, not granting them. And that government itself should be limited.

Olbermann, et al, do not believe in these things. The term "liberal" has been stolen so the masses might believe they have an "liberal" -- in the classic sense -- agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. Modern-day liberalism is actually more closely related to facsism.

Olbermann, Matthews and Maddow are embarrassments. I can no longer even bring myself to watching them.

smitty1e said...

Amar's books on the Constitution/Bill of Rights are quite readable, dispassionate scholarship.

Dave said...

Of course the racist regressives want to read slavery back into the Constitution.

After all, it was the dems who were the supporters of slavery in America, and it was the dems who created the Jim Crow laws, and it was the dems who founded the KKK.

It is also the dems who, to this very day, consider back Americans to be so inferior that they need the assistance of government to even breathe.

And just look at the way the dems treat black Americans who have managed to escape the liberal plantation.

It doesn't get any more racist than that.

Nostalgia does have its allure, after all.


JBW said...

You guys are hilarious! Comments like these from people like yourselves are why I come here. Even the title of this post is great; yes, progressives love slavery! Nailed it!

Don, if you decide to delete yet another of my comments please at least take the time to explain your new rules for doing so since staying on topic and not using the dirty words that hurt baby Jesus' ears is apparently no longer good enough. Cheers.

AmPowerBlog said...

Same as the old rules, JBW. I don't care for the abuse. Debate is fine, even humor, etc. But sometimes your faux intellectual dismissals are simply puerile and not worth consideration. Blog that shit in your house, mofo.

JBW said...

I call you and Sarah Palin perpetual victims all the time in my house, Don. Just calling you on your shit.

And the grown up way to pronounce that word is "motherfucker", chief. You wanna call me names, try not to be too puerile about it.