The Week That Was: The Constitution Edition

On the face of it, I was actually not too upset when Speaker John Boehner announced that Thursday’s House session would open with a reading of the Constitution. In all honesty, I don’t think it is a bad idea to take some time to read such important, foundational documents in public.  Especially now, when millions can watch it happening on television.  How totally cool, if you ask me.

Given however, that I am not naive enough to think it would not be all about politics, I was anxious to see how they would do. It would say an abundant amount about them, after all. I was secretly wondering, well – just how do Republicans read the Constitution, anyway? Literally, I imagined.

I was wrong. But at least they had a debate about how they would do it, before they actually did it…

The chamber's Republican leaders - who organized the first-of-its-kind event - had touted the reading as a way to bring the country back to its political roots. But they didn't want to go all the way back: Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was running the procedure, said lawmakers would read a Constitution that had been edited to remove sections negated by later amendments.

"Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read," Goodlatte said. He said he had consulted the Congressional Research Service, among others, in choosing this version of the document.

Those changes meant the erasure of the 18th Amendment, for instance, which created Prohibition (it was later repealed by the 21st Amendment). It also meant that legislators would not read the original language from Article 1 that tacitly acknowledged slavery

That language, called the "three-fifths compromise," stated that representatives would be parceled out based on a count of all free inhabitants, excluding Indians, and "three-fifths of all other persons." Those persons were understood to be slaves.

Needless to say, some on the Floor of the House were none-too-happy about the editorial decisions.

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said he was opposed to making the changes, arguing that doing so would remove evidence of a long struggle to alter the document the Founding Fathers wrote. That Constitution in its original form also did not allow women to vote: That right came with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

"Many of us don't want that to be lost upon the reading of our sacred document," Jackson said. "The three-fifths clause would not be mentioned."

And then they all got bored and started fidgeting. Checking electronic devices. Leaving the chambers. Luckily, some “birther” added a bit of levity by going off the deep end during the reading of Article 2, Section 1, the mandate that only a “natural born citizen” be elected president.

So what does it say about Republicans that they think they can edit the Constitution on a day when the whole country is watching – and presumably, could be learning important civic lessons from the exercise? That they believe the Constitution is not to be taken literally? That they believe the Constitution can be subject to interpretation? That they believe the Constitution is a living document?

No. No. No. All it means is that they believe it is acceptable to try to re-tell large portions of American history they deem – for one reason or another – to be inconvenient to their present-day narrative. It’s not about erasing history, but rather about something more insidious. It is about shoving facts they don’t feel accurately represent their own personal historical experiences, into a corner. It’s about always taking to the tactic of marginalizing others, in pursuit of their own power. And as Rep Jesse Jackson reminds us with his statement about the decision to “editorialize,” they did all that today quite well today.