I urge Democratic Representatives to accept the Republicans' offer to read parts of the Constitution

[PurityOfEssence]

Okay, so the bully-boys are going to grandstand by trotting out the hoary document that they can't possibly really fully embrace, and have gone so far in their faux-inclusion to invite Democrats to join in reading part of it.

Well, huzzah to that. I seriously and sincerely urge certain members to request to read specific parts of it; they should request those specific parts publicly, and make a stink about it if blocked.

The members I'd most like to hear from are Jan Schakowsky, Xavier Becerra (my rep) and specifically Pete Stark, the ONLY public atheist to ever be elected to Congress in the history of the Republic. (I think that's the case; please set me straight if I'm wrong...) He should even stoop to public guiltifying as a certified minority to have this particular right, if necessary...

I would like all of you to make specific suggestions here, and I personally call on Pete Stark to be allowed to read the third paragraph of Article 6, which reads:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Let them put that in their pipes and smoke it...

[villager]

1. Could they hear the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights again?

n/t

[Sherman A1]

2. I think it actually is a Grand idea

To start each new Congress with a reading of the document and all the Amendments followed by a Pledge of Allegiance to remind them and all what they are there to do.

That said, it might be a problem in that pesky little document tends to cut both ways.

[rfranklin]

3. One problem...they only like the right wing interpretations of the Constitution...

For instance, "Where does it say 'separation of church and state' in the First Amendment?"

[PurityOfEssence]

6. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That means, literally and without much wiggle room, that we, as a government, can't even comment on the subject, certainly not endorse it and definitely NOT make laws regarding it. It's NOT, as theocrats claim, just to keep any one SECT from having sway, it's talking about the concept of religion itself.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (which is a verb, the act of establishing, not a noun, or a place of business); we violate this by putting "In God We Trust" on money, we violate this with every spending bill authorizing funds for the office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Personally, much as I don't like religion, I don't want to push this point at the moment any more than I want to draft any more gun legislation, but it's there. I'm content to freeze things as they are and contain the current encroachment

Just because the phrase "separation of church and state" that was used by Jefferson and Madison isn't specifically there, it IS in at least one historical letter of Jefferson's to explain the concept behind the wording that is there.

By saying that Congress shall make no law on the subject, it is literally keeping government and religion skew, which is to say that there is a separation between the two. Jefferson literally wrote of "a wall" between the two, which is about as specific a term for "separation" as one should need.

Looked at another way, "Congress" is the evocation of the "state", and "make no law" is the "separation" between it and "religion" or "church".

[ladjf]

4. Why should they participate in ridiculous and disingenuous political

theater? Every representative has access to the Constitution.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. To specifically read parts of it outloud that show the Republicans as representing it selectively

Is this not clear?

They're grandstanding to "show" that we are pulling a fast one, and only they truly care about the intention of the country's founders. THEY are the ones at odds with the spirit and letter of much of the Constitution, and calling their bluff would throw it right back in their faces.

Conversely, to NOT participate in it will ricochet on us because they'll claim statistics about how this proves we hate the Constitution, the Spirit of America and the Country itself.

[ladjf]

7. I see your point and we both agree that the Republicans are

"grandstanding" or as I put it, "disingenuous political theater". You feel that if the Dem's don't participate, there will be a "ricochet" effect of the Dem's non-participation. However, I don't think it is in our best interest to allow the Pubs to lure us into their trap. They are going to claim what ever they want to regardless of what Dem's do or say.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. Fair enough, but part of our problem right now is our perceived passivity

The reactionaries are emboldened by Obama's unwillingness to fight back or hold the line when attacked. We need to make them deploy their forces and work for their gains, even if they're momentarily inevitable. Maybe it WAS inevitable that the rich would get their tax cuts if the middle class were to get theirs, but it would have helped immensely if he had made a stink about it and forced them to stand up and form the words in their mouths to make their case. It would have given them a bit of apprehension about further hijinks, and that is a good thing.

Now, they think they can run roughshod over us, and claim the high ground of being the few who respect the Constitution. Conservatives always resort to this lie that they're the real civilized members of society and that we're the unwashed, uneducated rabble. They love to seize upon this, and it works for many voters. That cannot be ceded to them, ESPECIALLY when they're the ones violating the constitution with every sanctimonious breath and transgression.

You make your opponent work for it. You make it difficult, even when the outcome is foregone. It keeps them busy. It allows them to make public mistakes. It soaks up their energies and money.

Napoleon once famously said that one should never interrupt an enemy when he was in the process of making a mistake, but that can often mean the opposite in practice. If one lets them make a mistake smoothly and quickly, a golden opportunity has been squandered. A little resistance could have netted some fine little sound bytes of huffing assholes saying derisive things about the working class and poor; those things are priceless, but our Maitre d' of a President has spared them pretty much any effort at all to work their evil. Even if it's done in the name of inevitability, it's still a huge PR mistake.

The Constitution has some real gems that show, undeniably, what a lie the conservative agendum is. We should call their bluff.