Repubs read Constitution while Dems object.

[Ga.windbreak]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40943931/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Dems question decision to read Constitution
Before the reading began, Democrats questioned the GOP decision not to read sections of the 222-year-old governing document that were later amended, such as the Article I, Section 2 clause that classified slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of congressional apportionment and taxation.

"It's a consequence of who we are," Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, said in reference to the three-fifth's clause and its deletion from the reading.

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash, while saying the reading was "special for all of us," asked whether it was "not intended to create some statement of congressional intent."

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who organized the reading, noted that Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a pioneer of the civil rights movement, has been asked to read the Thirteenth Amendment that abolishes slavery. He said he hoped the event would "inspire many more Americans to read the Constitution."

Just another ignorant statement from someone from the party who wants it both ways. Here is the truth of that little matter!

The 3/5 clause was not meant to mean that blacks were only 3/5 of a human being, the 3/5 clause is an anti-slavery clause. In the constitution it says that for every 30,000 people you have, you can get a representative to the house. Three of the southern states that favored slavery (North and South Carolina and Georgia) wanted to count their slaves as residents and the lawmakers in the north said "oh no, if you want to count them and get your representative, then you have to free them". The southern states refused because they considered black slaves to be their property. Luther Martin (New Hampshire) and Elbridge Gerry (Massachusetts) said "okay, if you want to count slaves as property, we'll count our homes, carriages, horses, etc as property and get more anti-slavery representatives". The south didn't like that, so they compromised, they decided that the south could count 3/5 of the slave population, meaning that it would take them 50,000 slaves to get one representative, rather than 30,000. What that did was cut the slavery representation in congress by almost half, which was a huge step towards ending slavery.

Just another step to continue to drive a wedge versus the truth of the matter disspelling such garbage. One wonders where they will get their money if they allowed their generated hate to die?

[Ga.windbreak]

And a few notes on Indentured servants:

http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/hpolscrv/whiteser.html

Reading thru this gives you a totally different idea of the life one would indure as an Indentured person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

You will notice about half way down the page the statement that it only lasted from 3 to 7 years is false as the boy was signed over for 14 years as were many criminals. You might also note that the date was in the 1830's and in the North.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peonage

American English: in a historical and legal sense, peon generally only had the meaning of someone working in an unfree labor system (known as peonage). The word often implied debt bondage and/or indentured servitude.

All most all of the newly freed slaves who moved away from "the old home place" ended up working in the system of "peonage" wherever they moved to North, South, East, or West. A sorry excuse for Freedom imho.

And why do I bring this up. To show that the 3/5 clause was not about slavery as such but about The North holding control over the South in congress. While it took 5 slaves to count as 3 people an indentured person counted 1 of 1.

[subdjoe]

Re: Reading the Constitution in the lower house of Congress.  I thought the idea was to make sure that the capons knew the rules that are in place now.  I notice that those objecting to reading todays Constitution didn't mention leaving out the part that set when the first census would be carried out, just the 3/5th clause.  And the ones objecting are the ones who usually insist that the Constitution is a "living document."  Seems like they would be the ones who would want the inactive parts left out.

Re: the 3/5 clause.  Interesting how it was the 'free' north that wanted to abolish slavery that insisted that blacks are not people.

Re: the whole bruhaha.  Heck, I wouldn't object if both houses of Congress read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-federalist Papers at the start of each Congress and spent the first month or two doing nothing but discussing them, unless there were some dire emergency that required immediate attention.  Might make them aware of just what the founders and framers had in mind for our Republic.

[ironfoot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

[Ga.windbreak]

ironfoot, and your point is?

[wncchester]

Dems love the Constituion when they get to say what it means.  Like, the rights of "the people" should only permit what modern innlecshul libberuls say it should mean (which is why they close their ears and hum loudly when anyone else reads it).  They love to proclaim the Constitution to be a "living document" and truly wish it to be; living things can be killed stone dead and they would LOVE to make it so!  

In their tiny minds the Constitution REALLY means no one should have guns except for govenment's own officers.  Tax payer abortions are protected rights at any age, on demand and at any point from conception until at least a couple hours after birth.  Free speach if it's filth or PC propaganda, but not from anyone they disagree with (which is virtually anyone with an ounce of common sense).  One man, one vote, especially if the voter is dead or illegal but it's limited to Demmicrats, all other voters should count for .3 per each.  The right for personal propery to be taxed anyway they see fit and gov. "Imminate Domain" means the gov has a right to take any private property a gov agency wants to either use or transfer to one of their wealthy supporters.  Gov has a right to use their guns and concentration camps to kill, imprision or compel individuals to pay for or or buy anything they dictate, because anything they wish is all for the "public welfair."

ETC, ad infinitum.

[Ga.windbreak]

Can I hear an AMEN!?

[Gary G]

Neither party respects the Constitution. It is a dead document in Washington and with most of the population. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. Look at how many times the vote in the house has been 434 to 1 with Paul having the only No vote based solely on constitutional principles.

The Constitution had a purpose; i.e. to prevent the Republic from morphing into an Empire with all it's bureaucracy. The founding fathers were quite familiar with the history of Rome. For example, Thomas Jefferson could read and write both Latin and Greek as could Adams and others. They were quite familiar with the classics and all were familiar with the Cato Letters.  Empires always end from internal decay and monetary debasement, as will this one. The tragedy is that the liberty of the people is gradually extinguished.

In a deeper sense, that is what the Civil War was about and the tragedy is that the empire builders got their foot in the door. It was a turning point in U.S. history and initiation of the empirical presidency.

The Acton - Lee letters illustrate the point:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/acton-lee.html

[subdjoe]

Can I hear an AMEN!?