After the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, received the Speakers gavel and made his speech before congress, Democrats began to malign the new order of business for the following day.
This is that the 'Constitution will be read before Congress'.
However, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) claims "They are reading it like a sacred text" it's a "ritualistic reading," "total nonsense" and "propaganda. You are not supposed to worship your constitution. You are supposed to govern your government by it."
This type of ridicule and objection for the reading of the Constitution leaves one to believe that Mr. Nadler must not take his oath of defending the Constitution seriously.
Perhaps Mr. Nadler, like most Democrats, need to be reminded just what their official oath says and what it stands for.
The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
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.
For other officials, including members of Congress, it specifies they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God".
I would say that the reading of the Constitution before Congress is the correct action to take, for within the past 2 years Congress has forgotten to govern by the Constitution and replaced it with governing by ideology!
I suggest the Mr. Nadler and all who oppose the reading of the Constitution either resign their office immediately or get with the program and do your duty for your office and for your country!
13 comments:
That's ironic, the Constitution says the same thing about their far-left blather
The reason why Democrats don't like the Constitution now is because of obamacare. If all the Congress took the oath seriously then there wouldn't be a mandate in obamacare. But they would rather have obamacare then the Constiturion.
Spot on post, AP.
The comments by Mr Nadler, Opps I mean Congressman Nadler... No wait, check that... I'll continue to call him Mr. Nadler because he fails to take his oath as 'sacred text' that he swore that he 'will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution.'
THIS is just one of many reason the Dems got trounced in Nov.
Remember this in 2012!
Mark, glad you got my deliberate disrespect of Nadlers position as a Congressman. Disrespect of the Constitution begets disrespect of position.
What I do not understand is why allot of people are surprised by this? This has been the case for decades if any were to pay attention.
Many people jumped on-board with the Tea Party movement which is great and this due to their being asleep at the wheel for most of if not their entire lives.
These same folks are now incensed at the remarks by Nadler, Behar et al but they should ask themselves why it took so long for themselves to wake-up.
Willful disregard and/or ignorance of the Constitution are one in the same in my opinion.
It is one thing to be justifiably angered by these statements, but another to put that anger into action i.e., school boards, city hall, county boards and all State departments and court systems.
You find the Constitution being attacked, attack the entity perpetrating it.
'What I do not understand is why allot of people are surprised by this?'
Well Christopher I guess it's like this, even though it shouldn't be a surprise, every time I hear/read it, it just simply amazes me these people hold public office in our capital.
Our forefathers, I am sure, are turning in their graves.
He wasn't ridiculing the constitution. He was ridiculing the conservatives.
I'm pretty sure why you guys didn't like it either. Nobody likes having their charade party pooped.
Personally i don't mind reading it every year. I don't think it will change anything, but go ahead and read it. Won't make conservatives respect it more, but it will let them act like they do.
And we know the charade is whats important, because you guys keep voting for them no matter how much they disregard it. At least when the Dems ignore it they aren't being hypocrites.
And what an interesting day it was...
first two reps skip the swearing in for a fundraiser and then a conservative interrupts the reading of the constitution to protest Obama.
i mean really. The first day wasn't over before the conservative movement made a mockery of the constitution and congress. Really?
Way to go conservatives..
Joe, analyze it, excuse it, interpret it or spin it anyway you want to, this still is America and you have a right to your opinion.
But the 'quote' is the 'quote' that came out of Nadler's mouth and it's printed above in this post.
I stand firm by the post!
"Won't make conservatives respect it more"
History has shown Cons respect it more then liberals. Case in point, Obamacare, and that includes 13 Dems who will vote for repeal. As one Dem put it last night, 'There is a lot of good in Obamacare, but the bad, including the individual mandate, out weigh the good.
BTW, the reading was not just done by the Reps but also by the Dems, also.
Two reps skip the swearing in? Dems did it in the 111th, as many have throughout the years.
And I am sure the Con was just getting Obama attention. You know, like 'Are you paying attention Mr President?' :)
Adams, analyze it, attack it, interpret it or spin it anyway you want to but he didn't ridicule the constitution. He ridiculed the process. He claimed that the GOP is using it for political party propaganda.
its directly in the words you left out...
Nadler called the "ritualistic reading" on the floor "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to claim the document for Republicans.
So that means what to you?
It means that he sees through the whole facade to me.
Even went as far as to say
"A lot of the tea party people, I wonder how many of them have read the Constitution," he said. "A lot of them, they seem to think the Constitution is the Articles of Confederation."
maybe thats got your panties in a twist?
Joe, first off no one said he was ridiculing the constitution, it was said he "oppose the reading of the Constitution"
The question is, why would he have a problem with congress reading it?
They never claimed it was sacred text or that it’s ritualistic, and why would he be calling this event 'total nonsense'?
One can interpret that last line as, reading it is nonsense. Well what are you to do with this document? Just look at it?
The reading is a reminder TO ALL who GOVERN, you have certain inalienable rights, but be on that the states and the people hold all other rights.
The Constitution is a wall, erected by our founders to keep tyranny at bay from the people.
Congress has tried to breech that wall in the past.
Mark i took this to mean he was ridiculing the constitution.
AdamsPatriot said...
Disrespect of the Constitution begets disrespect of position.
Sorry if i was wrong.
You can argue that he was disrespecting the constitution and i would disagree, but its your place to believe that. The main reason was that this reading was not only COMPLETELY a ritualistic reading despite what they said or didn't say but it was also merely political propaganda. I don't believe for a second that republicans will do anything but what they always have, which is to abuse it based on false ideals of what it says.
Post a Comment