Should the Constitution have been read aloud in the House?
1 Comment

  • Rhonda - 10 years ago

    It is ashame that this question even needs to be asked. At the same time since the reading of the Constitution has not been read in Congress and present day shows that there is a Constitutional loss and misunderstanding of the very book of "rules" that our federally elected representatives are at, it is all the more a shame that there is not a special day of the year that those people do not go over the Constitution and maybe even discuss some parts of it to get a better understanding of it, let alone just reading it.

    The prime purpose of the United States Supreme Court is to help define and interpret the Constitution and yet I wonder nowadays if those justices understand it as well as they should. If they do, I then tend to wonder if maybe they use that knowledge against the people, us, since it is obvious that they know that the Congress is not familiar with it. That is how many times the Court can do what is known as "legislate from the bench".

    A good way to get a sense of the lack of understanding of the head people as well as the general populace in having virtually little understanding about the Constitution is the sometimes two terms that are used and yet thought of to be the same. Actually the one term is used by what it means and that is bad. It is this. The high Court, if not the rest of the federal representatives, must at time TRANSLATE the Constitution. The term translate means to change. Why must we change anything in what is already written? No, there can be interpretation debates, but there needs never be a translation of our high law book.

    Therefore yes, it was good that Congress read the Constitution and it needs to do it at least every two years to be reminded what it says allowing each new termed representative to get involved with it at least once.

    June 11, 2011/Saturday

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment