GOP in Turmoil Over Reading of Constitution

(SATIRE)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The scheduled reading of the entire United States Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives during tomorrow’s opening session as well as a vote on a similar proposal in the Senate appeared in jeopardy this afternoon following unexpected dissent within the Republican Party.

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner has reportedly been bombarded in recent days with letters from members of his caucus expressing everything from ‘grave concern’ to ‘outright disgust’ over the proposed reading on the House floor. A vote on a proposal by Senator Jim De Mint (R-SC) and incoming Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) that the historic document on which the nation’s system of government is founded also be read aloud on the Senate floor faces a possible filibuster — not by Democrats, but by Republicans.

“This is eerily reminiscent of what happened with the New START Treaty before the recess,” lamented Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ). “This is, as I’ve repeatedly warned, exactly the sort of thing that happens when a vote gets rammed through before people have had a chance to read what they’re voting on.”

When asked to elaborate, Sen. Kyl explained, “I certainly don’t mean to imply that any of us — as far as I know — don’t support the Constitution, per se. But personally, as all activity that takes place on the Senate floor becomes a part of the official record, I’d prefer that any reading be limited to the good parts — you know — I mean, I don’t see where wasting the People’s time by reading, for example, the 14th and 17th Amendments would serve any meaningful purpose.”

According to one Boehner staffer, while some on the House side echoed Kyl’s sentiments, many of the GOP’s more senior Representatives expressed more grave concerns. “Many of them endeavored, over the Christmas recess, to actually read the document for the first time,” according to Newton Toomey, a senior aide who spoke on condition of anonymity, “and they didn’t like what they saw. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe it was Joe Barton who put it best when he wrote that, ‘having the whole damn thing on the record can only come back one day to bite us in the ass.’”

That view appears to be in agreement with that of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who said in a statement released by his office late this afternoon, “I just don’t see where increasing the public’s knowledge and awareness of the Constitution could possibly aid the Republican Party in pursuing our agenda.”

Despite the controversy, as of this writing incoming Speaker Boehner insists that the Constitution will be read on the House Floor during the opening session of the 112th Congress. “Whether or not we’ll skip certain parts and just emphasize the highlights is something we’ll have to sit down and hammer out tonight. But personally, I’ve been looking forward for a long time for that moment when the clerk reads the part of the preamble that says, ‘We hold these truths to be self evident…’ I’m gonna collect on a lot of bets when that becomes part of the Congressional record.”

One interested party certain to be tuned in to C-SPAN is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who, when asked her thoughts about the proposed reading told reporters, “This is a moment that will be a personal highlight for me personally. I first began reading the Constitution during the 2008 campaign, and ever since I’ve been dying to see how it ends.”


http://thedesperateblogger.com/2011/01/gop-in-turmoil-over-reading-of-constitution/

aid the Republican Party in pursuing our agenda.”
EGZACTLY

Heretics that they are

This has to go viral. Spread the meme.

that's perfectly believable. I want to see McConnell and Boner forced to deny it on Meet the Press.

February 7, 1995 - House Republicans Vote Down Fourth Amendment
During the debate today over the House Republicans' bill about the Exclusionary Rule, the House Black Caucus introduced an amendment to the bill that the Republicans promptly voted down. The amendment turned out to be the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, verbatim. The House Republicans were "chagrined." The vote was 303-121, meaning that a number of Democrats joined the Republicans.

Here's the Fourth Amendment:
Amendment Article 4
Right of Search and Seizure Regulated.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://homepages.spa.umn.edu/~duvernoi/dem.html

Thanks for sharing.

which parts to read.

that says alot about how screw up that party is today.

So it's bread and circuse, again, for the rubes. Perhaps this time around, the public won't be so blase with the theatrics that the Republicans will again resort to instead of doing the nation's business ala the Clinton era.

can only come back one day to bite us in the ass.’”

Not satire!

A few responsible Democrats can turn this Puke stunt into a good thing for the people they take good money for representing.

are not much different than the nonsense of their so called "Christian" faith.
They just make shit up to fit their selfish ideology.

Then I saw your screen name.

:rofl:

-Hoot

Seriously, did he really express concern that the reading should be limited to the "good parts" of the Constitution?

I cannot believe what I read....

force republicans to have the whole Constitution read, word for word and get it put in the Congressional record. Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain by voting against the reading, we are the true believers in the Constitution, have been all of this young century, all of the twentieth century and most of the nineteenth, save for Lincoln bettering the poor excuse for a democratic party of Lincoln's day.

and avoid Amendment 14? Yeah, that's their agenda.

"The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when no committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such place of Places as the Congress man by law have directed."

God forbid they bring the terrorists to New York for a decent trial.

It supports their position. It says Congress shall direct where the trial is to be not the Executive branch.

Those who committed a crime in NY are dead. The ones at Gitmo are accused of crimes in Afghanistan.

like KSM, are accused of crimes involving the 9/11 attacks...

The other choice would be Virginia, where the Pentagon is located, or Massachusetts or New Jersey, from where the hijacked planes took off...

Those counts arise from acts which took place in Afghanistan and Germany. I know that using that Constitution provision arguments could be made that the overt acts of the conspiracy took place in NY, Virgina, and Mass. so they should be tried there but I believe the main count arises out of this country.

Boehner eg, once read a statement from the Declaration of Independence thinking it was from the Constitution. I think it was appropriate that he did this at a Tea-Party rally on the steps of the captial bldg. So, it's not too far-fetched to believe that many of them have never read it.



Minority Leader of House John Boehner Makes Major Gaffe at Tea Party Rally



Is he married to Cantor btw? Why do we never see Boehner without Cantor peering over his orange shoulder? Unless only his face is orange ...

Amendments would serve any meaningful purpose."

So close to truth that it hurts.

My brain hurts.

:rofl:

:rofl:

Marbury versus Madison.

1803.
Case law can and does overturn & expand statute law.

I hope their heads explode. This Constitution reading is a farce because they want to go back to "original intent of the Founders" which is not possible to do.
Back in the Watergate days they called it "strict construction".

Judicial review trumps strict construction.

Then there's that maddeningly broad "general welfare" clause.

well actually 4, but:

Scalia: 14th Amendment Doesn't Protect Women Against Discrimination

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/scalia-14th-amendment-doesnt-protect-women-against-discrimination.php

How many people who read this post noticed the first word (in parentheses) within the body text -- just under the title (as I put in all my posts because people get really pissed off thinking they're real...)???

that I have to double-check for satire sometimes. :crazy:

p.s. I often describe myself using your 'handle'... (!)