This is quite a long video, and seeing as vita brevis, I don’t expect many to actually watch the whole thing, but it’s quite an instructive, albeit maddening, exercise do so.
You may recall that at the start of the 112th session of Congress, highly juiced by Tea Party sentiments, House Republicans implemented a new rule stating that all bills must include a statement “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress” to enact the measure. But how does that work when the measure being proposed is blatantly unconstitutional? Well, just watch and see!
I look forward to future bills being introduced into Congress by Democratic lawmakers with an incoherent, “uga booga baka bonga” preamble and seeing whether the same standard of technical rigour will be applied with respect to the new constitutional justification rule…
The following video is posted in honour of the Republicans’ ridiculous stunt today celebrating their takeover of the House of Representatives by reading the U.S. Constitution on the House floor. A “superceded” version of the Constitution, it should be noted; one that conveniently allowed them to omit of its more problematic aspects, like the part assigning slaves the value of 3/5 of a person. A wag at the WP with impeccable timing cleverly described this as “Huck Finning” the document.
As Matt Yglesias said: “Just kind of sweeping this all under the rug transforms the gesture into a silly and inaccurate deification of a practical document written by human beings…” Ironically, it’s also a repudiation of the firmly held belief by (most usually right-wing) constitutional fundamentalists that America’s founding document is somehow fixed in amber.
I’m sure all the legal scholars populating the ranks of the Teabag movement will fully appreciate congressman Nadler’s objection to the prohibitive Congressional initiative regarding proposed suspension of funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”) that unfortunately violates Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.
I’d be highly amused to see the result of rounding up a hundred (a thousand or even 1.8 million) “teabaggers” who are endlessly nattering on about the Constitution and asking them to explain what a bill of attainder is…