Reading the constitution

[The_Second_Stone]

Apparently they omitted all the stuff they wanted to omit. So they did not only botch what they set out to do, but they did the opposite: they edited it to their preferences.

[LouisB]

@Bricker

The Constitution merely says that members must be “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation” to support the Constitution. It does not specify where the oath must be given. It’s true that in an excess of caution, Sessions retook his oath, first taken elsewhere in the Capitol, on the House floor. It’s unlikely in the extreme that his first oath was defective, but this kind of overabundance of caution is similar to President Obama’s do-over of his oath of office. Unlike the Congress, the president’s oath is spelled out, word for word, in the Constitution, and yet no one seriously believed Obama’s first day as president was legally ineffective because of the flub.

At least, I assumed at the time no one did. I guess I missed LouisB’s outraged commentary on Obama’s arrogance in assuming the duties of the President before taking the correct oath.

Or perhaps LousiB applies this exacting standard in only one direction.

I’ve never made a secret of my contempt for the Republican party but I don’t believe my standards re the same are exacting. I would say that I regret having offended you but since you have offended me times without number, I won’t, even though my offending you was not intentional. Perhaps you would be a good person to educate us on the Constitution of the United States; I would welcome lessons on each clause as originally written along with all relevant amendments; something akin to the “Who wrote the bible” series would be very helpful to those of us without the benefit of a Constitutional Law background. I would ask that any Latin deemed necessary be explained to those of us whose educational background has not made us proficient in that language. I don’t intend this as sarcastic; I really would welcome such a series of articles.

[BrainGlutton]

@The_Second_Stone

Apparently they omitted all the stuff they wanted to omit. So they did not only botch what they set out to do, but they did the opposite: they edited it to their preferences.

Well, remember, America is still, really, essentially, a Protestant country, demographics notwithstanding.

Any process of textual construction that resembles Biblical scholarship so closely as that must be beyond reproach!

[Frank]

@Bricker

It’s true that in an excess of caution, Sessions retook his oath, first taken elsewhere in the Capitol, on the House floor.

I’d just like to make sure that you are not arguing that taking the oath via television was acceptable according to the rules of the House.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

It’s true that in an excess of caution, Sessions retook his oath, first taken elsewhere in the Capitol, on the House floor. It’s unlikely in the extreme that his first oath was defective, but this kind of overabundance of caution is similar to President Obama’s do-over of his oath of office.

SALISBURY: Therefore, to be possess’d with double pomp,
To guard a title that was rich before,
To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.

– King John

[LouisB]

@BrainGlutton

It’s called “pandering.” Google it.

I don’t need to google it; I know what it means.

[Monty]

Didn’t it serve to provide some more melodrama with some “birther” in the gallery disrupting the stunt? I’ve watched C-SPAN’s coverage of Congressional sessions before. They do need more theater. Over here, the preferred theatrics is to (a) pile up desks between the Speaker’s rostrum and the assemblyman trying to take the floor, (b) disparaging or © actual fisticuffs. A little-used stunt is the mass walk-out of one party’s members but that doesn’t always guarantee too few assembly members remaining to have a quorum.

[godix]

@Spit

I see no issue with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution being read at the opening of every new congress, and I really do not understand the uproar against doing so.

It was a Republican idea. It must be bad. At least, that’s about all I’ve gotten from the whining about it.

[Revtim]

@LouisB

What will/did the Republicans accomplish by reading the constitution aloud accomplish?

I understand spending the time to read it cost over a million bucks, so they managed to make the first thing they did hypocritical, what with all their “cutting spending” rhetoric.

[UltraVires]

@Revtim

I understand spending the time to read it cost over a million bucks, so they managed to make the first thing they did hypocritical, what with all their “cutting spending” rhetoric.

I keep hearing that number, but I can’t believe it. I’ll tell you what, next time they need the constitution read, they can pay me $500k and I will read the whole damned thing to them. Saves the taxpayers $500k and puts $500k in my pocket.

[Ravenman]

@Revtim

I understand spending the time to read it cost over a million bucks, so they managed to make the first thing they did hypocritical, what with all their “cutting spending” rhetoric.

No, it did not cost over a million dollars. That’s silly.

The salaries of all the various people who work in the House of Representatives would be paid if they were reading the Constitution, fixing the deficit, or having a rather disgusting orgy on C-Span. The money saved by having a day of recess is pretty much the electrical bill for keeping the lights on and the TV camera operating. I can assure you that cost of electricity is not $1 million per day.

[RickJay]

@Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela

On the other hand, Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick were elsewhere. Whether the constitution insists on their presence in the house to take the oath of office or not, it is clear that the expectation was that the oath be taken with all the others members.

There is no such “expectation” in the Constitution, and frankly, the only reason anyone would give a tin shit where they took the oath of office is to score meaningless partisan points.

Now, their missing the oath with everyone else might suggest they’re jerks, but being a jerk is not a disqualification from elected office. If anything, it’s a prerequisite.

Then, rather than arrange for someone to investigate whether or not their oath of office was valid, they voted on legislation while that oath of office was in question, which as I understand it is totally against the constitution.

Their oaths weren’t under any question at the time they voted, were not in question by any informed and reasonable person, were not in question according to any sane interpretation of the Constitution, and there is nothing at all in the Constitution about an oath of office being “in question.”

As to the SUBJECT: well, of course they’re pandering to the base. The latest Republican thing is that they are somehow more in love with the Constitution than the Democrats. It’s completely without any basis in fact, but it’s good PR.

[Ravenman]

@RickJay

Their oaths weren’t under any question at the time they voted, were not in question by any informed and reasonable person, were not in question according to any sane interpretation of the Constitution, and there is nothing at all in the Constitution about an oath of office being “in question.”

Their oath wasn’t in question at the time of the votes because nobody knew the facts until later.

As I have cited, both House rules and federal law require congressmen to be present during their oath.