Notable passages of Constitution left out of reading in the House

[Harry Hope]

Source: Washington Post

Notable passages of Constitution left out of reading in the House

Thursday, January 6, 2011

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer

Notable passages left out: (Text taken from the National Archives' official Constitution site). http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html


1. The Three-Fifths Compromise. The Founding Fathers, seeking to appease slave states, found a compromise that tacitly allowed slavery without writing the word into the Constitution. It wrote that representatives would be parceled out among states based on a count of free people, and three-fifths of "other Persons." That was understood to mean slaves.

That provision's impact was nullified by the 13th Amendment, which banned slavery.





Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010603759.html

---

You must read the entire article

Harry

[Moondog]

1. In other words, it is

being read as amended, or as it stands today.

Once you get past the fact that this is just a publicity stunt, I'm not sure I understand the problem.

[w4rma]

2. Is this part still enforcable by Constitutional law?

Left out, from Article 1, Section 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

[Moondog]

3. No. Nor has it been for nearly a century and a half. n/t

[jberryhill]

9. Good golly of course not - get a redline version

Here, this one has superseded text in italics:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

[yellowcanine]

5. Except that the teabaggers make a point of questioning some of the amendments, including the 14th

amendment and also bringing up bogus states rights arguments based on a pre-Civil War Constitution which did not have the amendments which negated the offensive language in question. So to me an honest reading would include the whole thing, warts and all.

[Moondog]

8. Well, two things -

whether "they" like it or not, the 14th Amendment is alive, well, and part of the law of the land. As is the 13th (abolished slavery and indentured servitude) and the 15th (the ballot box may not be denied based on race, previous conditions of servitude). Collectively, btw, the 13th, 14th and 15th are known as the Reconstruction Amendments.

States Rights arguments, on the other hand, tend to be based upon the 10th Amendment which is still in force. To what degree the 10th has continued vitality is open to legal debate; and that debate is coming, probably sooner rather than later. My point is that the States Rights arguments cannot, credibly, be called completely bogus at this point in our history. Particularly with the current group of US Supreme Court justices.

On edit: correct punctuation error

[yellowcanine]

10. the "bogus state's rights arguments" I refer to are "nullification" and "secession" arguments a la

John C. Calhoun. The current state's rights advocates go way beyond the 10th amendment and are indeed introducing nullification and secession into the debate.

[sadbear]

4. The parts they left out are current republican policy and ideology.

Too embarrassing to read aloud.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. they also didn't read the 13th amendment

[SnakeEyes]

7. Yes they did.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) read it and they received a standing ovation.

[yellowcanine]

11. They also skipped a whole page when someone flipped over 2 pages.

And had to come back later and read it into the record. And they ran out of "Constitution" before everyone had a chance to get their photo op. Also by that time only a hand full of congress critters were still around. Some actually read their piece and immediately left. Too funny. We are getting into Keystone Cops territory with the Boehner crowd.

[No Elephants]

12. More ado about nothing. Meanwhile, how many troops died or were injured yesterday?

How much interest accrues every damn day on our national debt?

Why did we ok a $453 million dollar bridge to an island in Alaska used by 200 rich people?

Why do we not know who lobbies in D.C. and how lobbyists benefit our Sens and Reps and their campaigns, friends and families? I would like to see that on the internet.

Please try to focus on something other than the relatively meaningless distractions the media pimps daily because mindless doo doo is easier than journalism.