The inmates are running the asylum. 
True to Goodlatte the Creepy’s word, 130 members of the GOP-led House read the Constitution on the House floor yesterday. (Or at least they tried to.) They excised the parts they didn’t like (ZOMG! That 3/5 stuff is sooooo embarrassing. Oh and that Prohibition stuff? Eesh. Let’s just not talk about that.)
James Clyburn called the excision of the 3/5 Compromise aka You Negroes Ain’t Whole People So Get Offa Our Lawn, “revisionist history.” Goodlatte responded that the intention was to read the Constitution as it “currently operates.”
Riiiiight.
So, essentially, these nitwits want their version of the Constitution upheld, not the parts they don’t like (or rather, the parts they are too embarrassed to admit they like). That’s not originalism or literalism or textualism or any other -ism.1 It’s straight up fuckery.
In a further homage to the Three Stooges, the GOP-led House screwed up and didn’t read Article 4, section 4 because — get this– the pages got stuck together. (Duh and/or hello?!) Two hours after the reading was “over”, Goodlatte returned to the House floor in order to read that section into the record.
Hmm. I don’t know. Have you read Article 4, section 4? Let me introduce you:
Article 4 Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Anybody else think that these ninnies accidentally on purpose didn’t read this particular section? I’m not one for conspiracy theories (I totally am), but aren’t these the same morons who are threatening secession, and rebellion, and uprising and whatnot? They will be victorious, so COME ON! They don’t need no stinking gubmint protection! They’ve got militias and will be just fine, thankyouverymuch!
Ok, it’s far-fetched… or is it?
It is. It definitely is.
Right?
Of course.
The final nail in the Coffin of Stupid was hammered during the reading of the portion of the Constitution that requires the President to be born in the United States; some dumbass, in a move stolen straight from Joe Wilson’s playbook (click here for my take on that bout of ridiculousness), shouted “Except Obama, except Obama! Help us Jesus.” 2
Jesus isn’t going to help you; he doesn’t like the willfully stupid. (I know — I asked him.)
Turns out the dumbass in question was Theresa Cao, age 48:
Oh Teresa. You’re as crazy as a soup sandwich, but I have to say — you look fantastic for 48. They say black don’t crack. I guess yellow don’t mellow.
1“I did have a test today. That wasn’t bullshit. It’s on European socialism. I mean, really, what’s the point? I’m not European, I don’t plan on being European, so who gives a crap if they’re socialist? They could be fascist anarchists – that still wouldn’t change the fact that I don’t own a car. Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism – he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: “I don’t believe in Beatles – I just believe in me”. A good point there. Of course, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus – I’d still have to bum rides off of people.”
2 I can’t even muster up any sort of outrage about the Birthers anymore. I’m all tapped out. They’re just too stupid for life. I’m surprised they have the wherewithal to remember to breathe in and out. If you like, you can click here to read my Birther-related tirades, but first I’m going to need to see your long form.
[Man alive, WordPress is a jerk. Have a great weekend, Juicers! (Or else.) -Toodles! -ABL]
elmo
Um…
Well, I think…
Hm. But…
Dammit. There just isn’t any way to apply the appropriate amount of snark to that without pissing off half the commenters. And I do so hate to let a fat, slow pitch like that slide by. Dammit.
RP
I’m 99% certain that the omission of article 4 was an accident simply because many of the Reps probably think that “a Republican Form of Government” means a government led by the Republican party, and they certainly wouldn’t want to omit that.
Ash Can
I find it disturbing that people like Teresa Cao are allowed out unsupervised. “Best health care in the world” my ass.
goblue72
I’d hit it.
Makewi
Yes, reading the version of the Constitution that is current, or in effect, is like reading “their version”. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic and sad.
Linda Featheringill
Ms. Cao is probably as nutty as a bedbug.
But she is also wrong. I have heard some ramblings from people who were obviously off their medications and they made more sense. You can be downright crazy and still be right.
But Ms. Cao is not.
I am more disturbed by the expurgation of the constitution. It is what it is. Read the whole thing, all the way through.
Humans as a whole are not angels, as everyone knows. The folks in the US are not and never have been more angelic than the rest of the species, as all but the nuts on the right understand. But we can change. And we do now and then.
stuckinred
Cao, she looks and sounds Vietnamese. What up wit dat, first this nut case Malkin from an Alongapo City Boom Boom joint and now a Tudo Street loon.
Brachiator
The claim is that they didn’t read sections that were later corrected by a constitutional amendment. Yeah, right.
Villago Delenda Est
@Linda Featheringill:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
– James Madison
Angry Black Lady
@elmo: oh come on! don’t be a tease! i can take it.
::braces self::
burnspbesq
Hit it out of the park? You should have hit that one into the Gamma Quadrant.
Makewi
It wasn’t a history lesson, it was a reminder to the current inhabitants of the chamber what the document that gives them their jobs says.
Linda Featheringill
Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Matthew 4:7.
[What? Do you think I would give it up without studying it first?]
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
I’m not one to look for conspiracy when I can explain it by ineptitude, and if there’s something the Republican House has in quantity, it’s ineptitude.
GregB
I know that a lot of these wingnuts get, uh, excited about the Constitution but the fact that some pages were stuck together grosses me out.
I wonder who’s responsible.
freelancer
Dude, you have no Jesus!
Mary
I get what you’re saying, but at the same time, there is a reasonable argument for omitting sections that have been expressly repealed or overridden.
Really though, it’s political theater and the whole thing is just stupid.
BombIranForChrist
Dear God, this cracked me up. I think about 50% of the reason I come to BJ these days is to wallow in this woman’s awesomeness.
burnspbesq
@Brachiator:
Did they have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they read the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments?
Omnes Omnibus
@Brachiator: Those sections are still in the Constitution. They weren’t stricken from the document. But you know that and I am preaching to the choir.
Angry Black Lady
@freelancer: HA!
Odie Hugh Manatee
But he sure attracts the willfully ignorant.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@Angry Black Lady: Well now, I would suggest that Jesus likes the willfully stupid. I mean, he liked the tax collectors and he forgave the people who actually killed him, so I think he likes just about everybody.
Now, respect? That’s a different question.
Dear “help us Jesus” lady and her ilk:
Jesus will always like you. He will hold your hand and he will pat you on the head and he will smile with genuine kindness when you run off at the mouth. He’s a very nice man, all told, and despite what many have done in his name.
However, he will recognize that you are morons, because “nice” does not = stupid.
So, if you want Jesus to respect you, pls stop being morons.
xo,
ee
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@freelancer: Win.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
Also, too:
That cartoon is very very full of win.
Rick Massimo
And not one of these pocket-Constitution-carrying, wrap-myself-in-the-sacred-document dudes noticed.
Although to be “fair,” it looked like only about five of them could be bothered to stick aroud and listen.
Omnes Omnibus
@Odie Hugh Manatee: That’s not really his fault. I am sure that Justin Bieber fellow is quite nice, but look at the idiocy done in his name.
El Cid
@burnspbesq: Did they actually read the 14th Amendment? Did they read the last 2 paragraphs regarding Confederate traitors and the traitors’ debts?
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
@burnspbesq:
You know they were rubbing against the lectern when they read the 2nd.
RP
@Brian S (formerly Incertus): Right — perfect example of Heinlein’s razor.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
@Mary: I’ve heard that, but I think it’s just a way to gloss over the fact that we’re not always right. And the silly thing is that the Republicans could have really made hay out of the fact that it was the Republican party (of the time) who pushed through the amendments that cancelled out the sections they were most interested in avoiding. It’s a bullshit way of getting civil rights cred, but they’ve never been above that in the past.
Ash Can
@Makewi: How many of them stuck around to listen?
gene108
Why obsess about original intent, if Republicans acknowledge that intent has been changed?
Tonal Crow
Omitting the 3/5ths-of-a-person clause of the Constitution was cowardice and — worse — deadly revisionism, of the very highest order. It denies not only the horrific wrongs of slavery, but the very existence of the millions of people who dedicated their tears, their sweat, their blood, and often their lives to overturning it.
Can we recall these mother-GOPers yet?
Sko Hayes
Not only did they not read the entire Consitution, it doesn’t seem that they understand it at all.
Two Republican congressmen were at a fundraiser , and missed the swearing in (they were watching it on TV, but as an article on HuffPo says, there’s nothing about swearing in via remote TV in the Consitution), and then went and voted on a bill.
If nothing else, the next two years are going to see a LOT of this. Enjoy it now, because after awhile the sheer incompetence of this party in charge of anything is going to get awfully frustrating.
joes527
@Makewi:
Bulworth
ABL, I love it when you’re angry.
Angry Black Lady
@Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther: excellent point about the stupid. i was projecting. i hate willfully stupid people aka sarah palin aka the horsechoker.
Tattoosydney
@Mary:
No. I really don’t think there is. The US convention has always been that Amendments are appended, not included in the original text.
In that case, to have someone decide to read “the Constitution” but decide that particular Amendments mean that they can leave out or alter a part of the actual text is meretricious and subversive, and a clear indication that their intent is to have the Constitution say what they want it to say.
Any judge in any court would immediately pull you up for trying to alter the actual words of the actual document – the document must speak for itself.
Even if you disagree with that, it’s destructive of historical accuracy. The original constitution had the 3/5ths section in it, and it was later amended out by the 14th. Any reading of the Constitution that leaves out the original 3/5 wording is attempting to white wash history and pretend the original wording was never there.
/edited slightly for clarity
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@Angry Black Lady: AND YOU ARE VERY MUCH LIKE JESUS!
You are Jewish, and you have brown skin. JUST THE SAME. Except I think he didn’t have lady bits. You have lady bits, right?
Sko Hayes
@Ash Can:
Here’s a link to a diary at Dkos that has a C-Span screen capture during the reading.
Looks pretty empty…
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/6/933803/-If-a-Constitution-fell-in-the-forest…
SFAW
gene108 @ 33
What’s the problem? “Original intent” means whatever they want it to mean at any given time and in any particular circumstance or situation, and in need not mean the same thing as it meant any other time they used it as justification. Hell, if Scalia can change his mind and “reasoning” to produce whatever result he wants, why can’t the rest of them?
It’s not as if the electorate cares that much about integrity, honesty, or ethical behavior – well, not the ones who vote for Republicans, that is.
In the future, whenever you have the urge to call Rethugs on their bullshit, just keep repeating the Mantra:
IOKIYAR … IOKIYAR … IOKIYAR
Jay in Oregon
Funny, I would have thought if any pages were stuck together, it would have been the ones with the Second Amendment on them. And possibly the Tenth.
EDIT: and @Brian S (formerly Incertus) beat me to it.
Catsy
@freelancer: Win.
jeffreyw
I like pie.
Omnes Omnibus
@Tattoosydney: Bingo. Sections of the Constitution are not removed by an Amendment. They are still part of the document. One can observe some of the unfolding of US history by reading the Amendments and seeing the general advance and expansion of human rights. For people who claim to love the document, they show very little knowledge of, or respect for, it. Fuckers.
Moonbatman
The slave states should have had more Representatives in Congress.
Good for you pointing out it was totally the Rethugians fail for passing the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
And forced Democrat Woodrow Wilson to follow along Just like they did with Obama and Gitmo.
Uloborus
I really don’t care whether they read an edited version of the constitution, since it was an utterly meaningless act of symbolism.
I just wish the GOP understood the constitution and had any loyalty to it beyond yelling the word at the top of their lungs.
gelfling545
I’m sorry. The position of Walrus has been filled. “The Walrus was Paul.
Calouste
@RP:
I’m 100% sure it was an accident because Republican Congressmen simply can’t count till 4, so they never noticed.
Omnes Omnibus
@gelfling545: Paul is dead. The position is vacant.
freelancer
@gelfling545:
I could be the Walrus, I’d still have to bum rides off people.
Villago Delenda Est
The reason to include the 3/5ths language is to demonstrate that the Constitution was not “perfect” when it was first drafted.
Nor did the framers ever claim it to be so. There was a great deal of compromise in the sausage mill, and the 3/5ths clause is one of the most obvious and glaring examples of compromise. The non-slaveholding states were like “wtf, you want to get credit for entities you claim as your PROPERTY to calculate your representation? Get the fuck out, hosers!” The compromise between this quite reasonable reaction and the conniption fit the slaveholding states threw is the 3/5ths rule.
As I believe DougJ pointed out some time back, there’s a fundamental disagreement in this country about the “perfection” of the Constitution. I’d say that since it’s a product of human beings, it will NEVER be perfect. But the challenge, as always, is to strive for it.
It’s clear we have a long ways to go.
Tattoosydney
@Omnes Omnibus:
Rereading Mary’s post, I can see some merit in what she says – omitting sections that have been expressly repealed or overridden.
For example, the 21st Amendment specifically says:
In that case, there might be a legal argument (although not, in my view, a cultural one) that the 18th amendment doesn’t actually form part of the text.
However, the 14th Amendment doesn’t actually say anything to the effect of “that bit in the original text that referred to 3/5 humans is repealed”. It consists of an entirely new block of text that repeats some of the words of the original section 2, but without the “three fifths of all other Persons” bit.
To read section 2 without all of its original words, imports legal meaning into the wording of the 14th Amendment that just isn’t there.
/admits he is not a US qualified lawyer and only actually knows about the law of some former British penal colony and therefore is pretty much making shit up as he goes.
Brachiator
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yep. Every printed copy of the Constitution includes the full text, and all amendments. It is not treated like draft legislation where older sections have
strikethrough.I wonder if the Congress yahoos are going to read the “corrected” text of Huck Finn as a follow-up.
SFAW
Which is why, as gene108 (and others) pointed out, the “original intent” zombies left it out. If it were shown that “original intent” wasn’t quite as high-minded and FSM-given as the OI-ers try to claim it is, then why should the rest of the Original Constitution be considered sacrosanct, vis-a-vis intent? Because some parts haven’t yet been amended? So what?
The usual response is, essentially “Because we say so!” or “Shut up! That’s why!”
Tattoosydney
@freelancer:
Heh.
JGabriel
ABL @ Top:
Am I really the only person that doesn’t have a problem with this? Clyburn probably should have said something like “as it’s currently amended” rather than as it “currently operates”, but otherwise, I think Congress is right to read it — if they insist on reading it — as currently amended.
Our government doesn’t operate under the Constitution as it was written in 1787. It has been amended many times, and some of those amendments delete, overwrite, or add, language to the Constitution as it was originally written. Yes, I understand that is typically published as originally written with amendments listed afterwards, but that is for historical accuracy, not because it still operates that way.
Finally, making it clear at the beginning of the session that the federal government operates under an amended Constitution makes all sorts of implicit mockery of originalist arguments and interpretations. In today’s hyper-conservative environment, that can only be a good thing.
.
General Stuck
I just don’t know what to say about that woman in the video, except maybe if the tea tards ever learn how to weaponize stupid, we are fucked.
SFAW
That one’s a keeper.
Tattoosydney
@Tattoosydney:
Interestingly, reading through, the 21 is the only amendment where any kind of “repeal” language is used, so I would suggest the only valid example of where part of the text of the US Constitution has actually been deleted.
losingtehplot
Umm, not to be disrespectful but, they were actually, you know, READING? In the immortal words of Brian the dog from Family Guy ‘like, wow, they know how to read …’ And then we get into the whole, like, interpretation/understanding sort of situation. That’ll take a while … Take a nap, or find a lawyer …
The Other Chuck
@General Stuck:
What do you think FOX News is?
SFAW
There’s a difference between weapons-grade stupid, and stupid that has actually been weaponized. Fox is the former, and I pray to FSM that we never experience the latter
Bill Murray
@Omnes Omnibus: Craig Stadler has been the walrus for at least 30 years
Tattoosydney
@JGabriel:
But they don’t delete or overwrite – every amendment except the 21st simply dumps its own words into the document without amending the existing text.
Section 2 of the Constitution says (in part):
Section 2 of Amendment 14 says:
The two texts cover the same subject matter and repeat some of the same words, and the second one clearly leaves out the “3/5” language which is included in the first.
But you can’t read section 2 as if the 14th Amendment deleted the “3/5” words from section 2, because it clearly didn’t. It just said much of the same stuff in different words.
The second text lays over the first text, and both of them have to be read together (and indeed, have to be read together with every other bit of the Constitution) to actually make sense of what they say as a whole.
Omnes Omnibus
@Tattoosydney: I would argue that the Constitution cannot be understood as a document unless it is presented as a whole. The 21st does repeal the 18th, but it does not remove it. In an edited reading, would you skip both of those Amendments and go from 17 to 19 and 20 to 22?
Moreover, we don’t tell you how to dip sheep, why are you telling us how to read our Constitution?
Angry Black Lady
@Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther: i think so. ::checks:: yep! still there! besides, do we know FOR SURE that jesus wasn’t transgendered?
food for thought!
Chyron HR
Silly libs, everyone knows that the Founding Fathers wrote all the good Amendments (IE, not the 14th) on Golden Plates which were later discovered by Joseph Smith.
I saw it on Glenn Beck.
Omnes Omnibus
@Omnes Omnibus: @Tattoosydney:
Then you have to spoil my sheep dip joke by offering a very good explanation cum demonstration of Constitutional interpretation. Also too, I know NZ has more sheep than people, but you guys have your share.
Tattoosydney
@JGabriel:
I feel compelled to note that my argument shouldn’t be read as an “originalist” one. The fact the Constitution has been amended is very important, and there’s nowhere in the actual wording of the Constitution that I can see that says “the original bits are better than the amendments”.
Quite the contrary, the Amendments are just as much the Constitution as the original bits. However, the “amended” constitution has to be understood as it is: a document with all sorts of valid extra bits tacked on, rather than a document which has had its original text amended.
Hence, you need to read the entire thing (except the 18th amendment) to actually read the document.
Angry Black Lady
@Tattoosydney: you’re descended from Irish prisoners.
Tattoosydney
@Omnes Omnibus:
No, not at all. I agree with you entirely. I’m just suggesting that there is a valid argument to make that the words of the 18th Amendment have actually been removed from the document in a legal sense because there is repeal wording. This argument doesn’t apply to any other part of the US Constitution as far as I can tell.
And, yes, actually leaving out the wording of even the 18th in a reading by Congress would be fucking stupid.
Fuck you, fucker.
Angry Black Lady
@Omnes Omnibus: NZ where the men are men and the sheep are scared.
Roger Moore
@burnspbesq:
You left out the 15th, 16th, 17th, 21st, 23rd, 24th, and 26th. I’ve heard some people serious suggest that none of the Amendments after the 12th are valid.
Tattoosydney
@Omnes Omnibus:
I may be a failed corporate lawyer, but I ain’t stupid.
SiubhanDuinne
@Villago Delenda Est #53:
As evidenced in the *13th word* (hmmm) of the Preamble: We the People of the United States, in order to form a *more* perfect Union . . .
Tattoosydney
@Angry Black Lady:
Linky broked.
Dr. Squid
I just want to add that I think “sheep dip” is a really funny phrase.
Omnes Omnibus
@Angry Black Lady: I once played on a rugby team that used a version of that as its motto. Our sheep were nervous though.
@Tattoosydney:
Such language. I semi-retracted it….
Angry Black Lady
@Tattoosydney: how ’bout now?
Tonal Crow
@General Stuck:
They haven’t?
JGabriel
Tattoosydney:
You’re right. I pulled up jpegs of the original 14th Amendment document to make sure. I’ve read the Constitution several times over the past few years in various sources, and apparently I jumbled up the notations that say things like, “Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16,” with the actual text of the amendments.
That said, I think we can agree that the text of some of the amendments is clearly meant to supersede parts of the Constitution as written. But yes, it does make the argument that Congress should have read the Constitution as written much stronger.
Mea culpa.
.
General Stuck
Growing up in Appalachia, our sheep had their own hair stylists.
Dr. Squid
@Roger Moore: Is there any reasoning behind that silly assertion beyond, “Shut up that’s why”?
Tattoosydney
@Angry Black Lady:
It’s true. Fortunately, it’s a prison with great beaches and restaurants.
/anyone who knows of Dylan Moran is good with me.
Omnes Omnibus
@General Stuck: What about dentists?
General Stuck
@Omnes Omnibus:
What’s a dentist?
Dennis SGMM
The GOP is so inept that they could only take back a resounding majority in the House and five Senate seats. Ha ha on them, right?
So, how inept must you be to lose to them? The Democrats are going to giggle their way to losing both the Senate and the presidency in 2012.
Tattoosydney
@Omnes Omnibus:
I swore before I saw your semi retraction, and anyway it was a fond usage.
How are you? I didn’t expect to be engaging in argument about the US constitution when I got up this fine sunny morning.
Dr. Squid
@Dennis SGMM: I take it you’re proud that the Republicans intentionally killed the economy just for political gain.
Brachiator
@JGabriel:
The idea of reading the Constitution is stupid. I would presume that these asswipes would know the Constitution before they took office, or could read it at leisure in their office.
The idea that they are doing this to emphasize that the are only going to pass laws that are constitutional is ignorant, and clearly seeks to belittle the inconvenient truth that the courts ultimately are the arbiter on what is and is not constitutional (but these are, after all, Republicans for the most part who are the stars and stripes of this dog and pony show).
As I noted before, there is not a printed text of the Constitution anywhere that I know of that strikes through the text that has been revised because of later amendments.
And since some conservative goobers think that some of the later amendments go too far, or are wrong, or have been wrongly decided, the notion that there is some clear neo-originalist interpretation of how the Constitution should be read is not only wrong, it is offensive.
Or as Mark Twain might say, it is French.
ETA: I saw your later comments on this issue. Points noted.
WereBear
Have I seen the Wingularity?
Shall I speak in tongues?
Shall I part my hair in front? Do I dare to eat a peach?
Uloborus
@Dennis SGMM:
…actually, yeah. In a midterm where everything should have gone their way, the Republicans fucked up so bad that the Dems still have the Senate – and since we already HAVE the presidency, they blew their political capitol and insane amounts of their rich backers’ money for nothing but a two year delay.
I mean, we’ve got 10% unemployment, it’s a midterm, and we kicked so much legislative ass the GOP base was screaming to get out and vote to try and turn it around. Not gaining any effective control of the government really is a colossal fuckup under those circumstances.
burnspbesq
@Brian S (formerly Incertus):
Must. Control. Gag. Reflex.
Tattoosydney
@JGabriel:
That’s a great link – thanks.
Absolutely. The 3/5ths wording was clearly intended to be excluded and to have no further legal effect. The wording that talks about it just hasn’t been deleted from the actual text.
De nada.
asiangrrlMN
If they are gonna read it, read. the. whole. damn. thing. Especially as the Constitution is supposed to be etched in stone or something. But, in the end, it’s all just a fucking stupid stunt. The next two years are going to be veeeeeeeery long.
@Tattoosydney: Hi, hon. I love it when you have your lawyerly hat on.
Dennis SGMM
@Dr. Squid:
I take it that you’re someone who hasn’t worked Democratic GOTV efforts since nineteen-fucking-sixty-eight, you ignorant fuck. I also take it that you’re someone who’s not the least bit disappointed that the Democratic party has yet to come up with a counter to GOP messaging on the size of government and the benefits of cutting taxes. Lastly, I take it that you’re the kind opf smug asshole that figures he’s already smarter than anyone else so he needs put forth no effort to win elections.
SFAW
The only chance any of us has of seeing A – not THE – Wingularity is taking a look just before we die. Because, until the world ends – or until the wingnuts all kill themselves – they’ll keep on getting crazier. We just can’t predict what their next insanity will be, because we can’t conceive of anyone being that crazy.
SiubhanDuinne
@WereBear: With my trousers rolled.
Tattoosydney
@asiangrrlMN:
Howdy. It’s mid morning, I’m drinking tea, birdies are chirping and I have three days of work left. Life is good.
How you?
Roger Moore
@Dr. Squid:
I think it’s mostly a Lost Causer argument. The Reconstruction amendments were invalid because they involved coercing the former Confederate states, and that taints everything the government has done since then. It’s slightly more sophisticated than “shut up, that’s why”, but not much.
Angry Black Lady
@Tattoosydney: i’ve never been to australia, but i’m going to, one day! i went to NZ for two weeks in 2008. i have a couple friends who moved there from the states and haven’t looked back. it’s gorgeous in queenstown in the summer.
asiangrrlMN
@Tattoosydney: Sounds yummy. I’m exhausted. My sleep schedule is fucked, and I am not, alas. And I’m a bit grumpy (when am I not), but much better than yesterday’s meltdown–which kept me off the grid for a bit.
WereBear
Ya got me there.
SFAW
Roger @ 102 –
Let’s not forget the “Constitution in Exile”, which Scalia and the rest of his idolators are big on. (Not trying to take anything away from your Reconstruction comments, I think they’re excellent points. Just that I think we have [at least] one other set of psychos to fend off.)
Just Some Fuckhead
Great post. God, I love ya, ABL. Any more shit and you refer ’em back to this comment.
Omnes Omnibus
@Tattoosydney: Quite fine, thank you. Using this discussion to avoid reading on the differences between anonymity and privacy under UK law…. After that, Dutch and Italian. I did US and Canadian earlier. Never volunteer to help someone even if it is your wife/spouse/significant other.
Dr. Squid
@Dennis SGMM: You could have simply said “Shut up that’s why” and gotten the same effect. Go get orgasmic about Woodstock, boomer phony.God you boomer phonies are such whiners. No wonder Reagan got elected.
And I was 12 when that happened, so don’t come crying at me about how wonderful you are for being around so long. You act like a child; expect to get treated like one.
Villago Delenda Est
I don’t think the idea of reading the Constitution into the record of the House of Representatives is a bad idea.
I think that bowdlerizing it to avoid its warts (the 3/5ths portion, in particular) is emblematic of the intellectual dishonesty (to put it mildly) of the Party of Jefferson Davis.
WereBear
@SiubhanDuinne: Beauty!
Tattoosydney
@Angry Black Lady:
If you need a friendly gay tour guide, let me know. We’re like New Zealand, except warm and with snakes and koalas.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Dr. Squid:
How exactly did Dennis act like a child, you stupid fuck?
Tattoosydney
@asiangrrlMN:
There was a meltdown?
Mike in NC
I’d have guessed Michelle Bachmann, but there you go.
Tattoosydney
@Omnes Omnibus:
Urgh.
/does little dance about not being a lawyer anymore in three days
Omnes Omnibus
@Tattoosydney:Don’t you also have a majority of the known venomous creatures on the planet? Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Dr. Squid
@Just Some Fuckhead: Pulling rank on a comment board is pretty childish, you stupid fuck.
Dennis SGMM
@Uloborus:
I live in, and do the GOTV shtick, in CA-26. It’s not ever the best district for Dems so going door to door and making those calls is largely a test of how many times you feel like being laughed at. That said, I was amazed at the level of apathy among those rare Democrats whom I contacted. Even worse was the trend to registering as “Decline to state.” I kept a rough count and approximately one in ten formerly Democratic voters whom I contacted had switched their registration to “Decline…” That seemed excessive to me so I looked up the percentage of CA voters who are registered as Decline. It is now near twenty percent. Twenty percent of the voters in the most populous state in the union are so unmotivated by either our party or the other one to declare for us. That makes me mad as hell.
Villago Delenda Est
@Dr. Squid:
First rule: stop digging the hole.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Dr. Squid: I don’t know who you are but Dennis has a long history here, as do many of us. You can go fuck yourself.
Omnes Omnibus
@Tattoosydney: This isn’t lawyering. My wife is working on an academic paper on anonymity. She has a few legal articles in her stack of research; I was asked to go through them and look for things of interest. I will get an acknowledgement in a footnote. Yippee.
Since this topic is potentially of interest to Balloon Juicers, I can let people know when and it it is published. Until then, specifics are to be kept quiet lest other evil academics steal the ideas. Vicious bastards.
SFAW
And no orcs, I hope?
And I hope Dennis and Squid will get a room somewhere, so the rest of us can get back to trashing the Rethugs without side-stories horning in.
Dennis SGMM
@Dr. Squid:
What in the world are you talking about? I am a critic of the Democratic party because I’m a Democrat and I often expect better of my party than it delivers. Your asshole imputation that I was proud of the Republicans earned you an appropriate response.
I didn’t make it to Woodstock, asshole, because I was in the Mekong Delta at the time. Boomer I am, and that’s what I’m stuck with. I’ve done the best that I could for my party and my country. Can you say as much?
Tattoosydney
@Omnes Omnibus:
We certainly have more than our fair share. However, they are generally limited to places we call the “country” and the “ocean”, where sane people don’t go anyway.
Dennis SGMM
@SFAW:
Fuck you, too.
SFAW
Dennis –
Glad you made it back. Hopefully it was in one piece.
SiubhanDuinne
@WereBear #111:
Yeah, well, I grow old.
No, srsly.
SFAW
Dennis –
My note at 127 was before I saw your “Fuck you too”, but I meant it (both before and after #126)
For what it’s worth, I think Squid is being a dickhead, but the back-and-forth was getting to me. Probably ’cause I’m a pussy or have delicate sensibilities or something.
Update: OK, so now I’m in moderation? What did I overlook? I didn’t mention soshulism [sic].
asiangrrlMN
@Tattoosydney: Personal. I did not want to infect the toobz with my maundering, so I stayed away. Looks like I needn’t have bothered.
Calouste
@Angry Black Lady:
Joke I heard while I was in Tattoosydney’s wonderful country:
Q: How can you tell if a Kiwi is bisexual?
A: He has a sheep under one arm and a pig under the other.
Jesse
@Brachiator: I own a 1987 commemorative copy of the Constitution where obsolete parts are struck through. It was issued by a Federal commission on the Constitution. The commission was overseen by US Chief Justice Burger, and was as “bipartisan” and bland as could be hoped for.
I don’t like the Republican Party, but I don’t like this argument either. Pretending obscenities like the 3/5 rule never existed is obscene, but it is also bad to pretend they are still in force.
Tattoosydney
@asiangrrlMN:
Is Ok. Just tell someone to fuck off to distract attention, and no one will notice.
I’m glad you liked my informed lawyer shtick. I love spouting off as if I know what I’m talking about and then magically get it right. Me heap good lawyer.
burnspbesq
@Calouste:
Aussies love Kiwi jokes.
Q: How do you set a Kiwi up in a small business?
A: Give him a big one, and wait.
asiangrrlMN
@Tattoosydney: That’s true. That does seem to be the M.O. around here. You very good lawyer (for three more days!).
burnspbesq
Did you hear about the bar in Auckland that ran out of ice? The bartender forgot the recipe.
Tattoosydney
@Calouste:
Yep. We love New Zealanders. And the British. But we all tell nasty jokes about each other so it’s ok.
After all, the latest Australian joke is our cricket team.
Uloborus
@Dennis SGMM:
Fair enough. The low interest, low information voter is not restricted to either side of the aisle, and it can be enormously frustrating. But the election patterning said VERY clearly to expect massive amounts of ‘eh’ from Democrats in the 2010 election. Midterm, we held both houses AND the presidency, and we’d passed a gigantic piece of signature legislation.
I agree it’s infuriating (I was out transporting mobility-challenged Democratic voters to their polling places myself, and I’m normally NOT much of an activist) when the election was such an obvious good vs. evil mismatch, but we should probably be thankful it wasn’t much worse. If the GOP hadn’t motivated their base by hopping on the racist schizophrenic bandwagon they’d have taken the Senate. The odds were just stacked hugely against us.
I’d really, really hoped we’d do better, but the average voter turned out to be… average, like always.
EDIT – By the way, everyone’s pissy because you sounded like one of our GOP trolls who come in and gloat and think they’re about to get their revenge. It’s obvious that’s not what you meant, but that really is what it sounded like! I figured it wasn’t because I recognized your name, and I’m rarely inclined to leap in with more than mild sarcasm under the most trying of circumstances.
Roger Moore
@Dennis SGMM:
God, that must be frustrating. I can get to your district by crossing the street, but fortunately for my sanity all of Pasadena is in CA-29. Here’s hoping the new redistricting commission won’t be so kind as to Gerrymander David Dreier another safe district.
Caz
The liberals don’t even know what the 3/5 clause is all about. It’s not about equating a “negro” with 3/5 of a person. That’s simply a misunderstanding of the clause.
And they read the current version of the law as it exists today. I don’t see anything shady or wrong about that. They simply omitted those portions which have been repealed, so that what was read was the current Constitution.
I think you should all be more concerned not with the fact that Republicans read the Constitution, but rather with certain progressive’s statements about the Constitution itself. One went so far as to call it propaganda.
To the progressives, the Constitution is merely an impediment to progress. And although they want to change it, they know they can’t ram their unconstitutional ideas through the amendment process, so they just use the “living document” and interpretaion doctrine to change it.
Talk about subversive.
But I expect nothing less from this blog and it’s followers.
Angry Black Lady
@Dennis SGMM: it’s telling that you describe eptitude in the ability to bullshit one’s way into office. they win elections! yay.
they’re still dumbfucks who think that reading the constitution on the house floor, and having some dumbass requirement that all bills brought to the floor state their constitutional basis, never mind that they are legislators who don’t get to decide whether or not their bills are constitutional.
but yeah, laugh it up, fuzzball.
the joke’s not on them, the joke’s on us.
Angry Black Lady
I love when people pontificate about what “The liberals” think.
I’m one of “The Liberals.” I’m also a “negro.” Now tell me what I know about the 3/5 Compromise. I’m very interested in what you have to say. And by that, I mean “not at all interested.”
Angry Black Lady
@Just Some Fuckhead: thanks, fuckhead. (hee, i like saying that.)
Caz
The description of the clause in the article which is the subject of this blog entry is inaccurate. And when I reference what you liberals think, I’m talking about the liberals I continue to hear describe the 3/5 clause in a manner which demonstrates their ignorance of it. Go read up on it if you want to know its roots and what it actually means. What is does not mean is that blacks are worth 3/5 of a white person. That’s an inaccurate talking point designed to light a spark in the masses, which is then used to garner animosity towards whatever group the progressive leaders want to go after (which is inevitably conservatives).
Don’t worry, I know you’re not interested in learning the truth about things. You’re too busy blindly supporting the progressive’s agenda of ruining our country by turning it into a socialist state.
That’s if they don’t cede our sovereignty to the global community first.
The bottom line is that the progressives’ vision of this country cannot operate within the guidelines of the Constitution. They should at least be honest and state their disagreement with the Constitution and their desire to do away with it as the rule of the land.
asiangrrlMN
@Angry Black Lady: It’s about property and the rights of states and, fuck, yeah! America! (Never mind that the property in question is an actual human being or that the rights of the state being protected is the right to own humans. Just forget that bit, ok?)
@Caz: Yes. Because it’s the progressives who want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages and make corporations persons and ban abortion and state that we are a Christian nation. Boy, conservatives are exemplary at this projection thing.
SFAW
ABL beat me to the punch re: most of your stupidity here, but, just so we’re clear: we, i.e. liberals, understand full well what it meant. But it is clear you don’t. But please explain to us what a proper “understanding” of the clause looks like. Then we’ll be able to explain to you how wrong you got it, and how generally clueless you are.
Considering the Original Intent is so important to all your love objects, i.e. Rethugs, one would think they’d read the whole thing, because Amendments dilute the Original Intent, and so on.
No, we think it’s an impediment to the Rethug/corporatist Weltanschauung of letting the super-wealthy (because they’re so “productive”, of course) do whatever the fuck they want, while ensuring that the middle and lower class get stuck with the bill (whether monetary or otherwise).
And if the Constitution weren’t a “living” document (although “flexible” might be a more appropriate term), as you so smugly and snidely call it, there’d be a lot of stuff YOU wouldn’t be allowed to do, even though you take it for granted. And your masters, the Rethugs and corporatists, would be upset too, because there’s no way Citizens United, for example, would pass the Original Intent test. Well, except if you’re Antonin “Outcome-Based Interpretation of the Constitution” Scalia, or Clarence “Sock-Puppet” Thomas.
As a side note: you might consider taking another shot at passing third grade. I think that’s when they start teaching more advanced critical-thinking skills. (I hope I didn’t scare you by using the word “thinking”.)
Caz
Well I did pass third grade, as well as my four-year B.S. requirements, and finally my J.D. curriculum as well.
I never claimed the republicans strictly abided by the Constitution either. Sometimes they haven’t, but it’s clear that the progressives are far more aggressive in their efforts to skirt its requirements than the republicans are.
I do enjoy how you liberals always degenerate into insults and name-calling whenever you’re losing an argument.
The problem with the progressive agenda is that when people have access to information and facts, the progressive ideas lose out. I don’t blame them then for wanting to censor Fox News, talk radio, and the internet. If they can get rid of a large portion of those outlets, they’ll have more success with their propaganda.
Stalin had a name for people like this: “useful idiots.”
agrippa
@Caz:
Caz:
Friendly advice:
paranoia will destroy ya
agrippa
Caz, get a grip.
When caz accuses someone of something, Caz has just doe, or is about to do the same thing himself.
You have made no argument. And, you are fully aware that you have made no argumet.
Svensker
@Caz:
Are you ugly? Cause you have a GREAT personality.
SFAW
You really have nothing other than regurgitated talking points, don’t you?
Well, that, and projection. (I know – amongst your weaponry …)
There’s no argument to lose – you have merely pressed the button on the Random Bullshit Generator (what used to be called “Mad Libs”, but of course those scary liberals got that changed without amending the Constitution, damn them!), and it spits out recent Rethug memes in what appears to be a sentence.
You haven’t graced us with your “knowledge” of what the “3/5 clause” means, although your alleged JD should make that a pretty easy task. So what’s taking so long? (For what it’s worth: I read depositions every day, and it’s pretty clear to me that even the ones with real JDs haven’t cornered the market on intelligence, so to speak.)
And, FYI, generally insults are directed at persons making “points” or “arguments” exceedingly stupid or intellectually dishonest – unless it’s an obvious parody. Since yours appeared not to have been a parody (unless you’re really good, which I doubt), but was exceedingly stupid or intellectually dishonest or both … well, if the shoe fits etc.
And your silliness about people having the facts: you might ask yourself “Why is it that persons, whose primary news source is Fox, are so woefully misinformed about current events and so forth?” Oh, right, because the liberals (Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch) want to keep them in the dark.
You’re a clown, you just don’t know it.
Wile E. Quixote
@Caz:
So does the fact that you got a J.D. mean that it’s as worthless a degree as an MBA is? I mean George W. Bush and Megan McArdle are both idiots and both of them have MBAs, Bush from Harvard and McMegan from the University of Chicago.
As far as the 3/5ths compromise goes it was bullshit. The asshole southerners wanted more than their fair share of representation and they got it by counting 3/5ths of the slave population of the slave states. Now you’re correct in saying tha the 3/5ths compromise didn’t say that slaves were only 3/5ths of a white person, because they were actually less since they didn’t get 3/5ths of a vote, or have 3/5ths of a white person’s freedom. The slaves themselves benefitted in no way from the 3/5ths compromise, only their white masters did. Reading the Constitution without reading all of it, including, the 3/5ths compromise is revisionist, conservative horseshit.
Wile E. Quixote
@agrippa:
So does this mean that if Caz starts talking about gay marriage and family values that we should assume that he does so because he spends most of his free time on his knees in airport toilets sucking dick like Larry Craig?
SFAW
By the way, I’m not exactly sure what your JD comment was supposed to mean. Either you (allegedly) have it, or you don’t. But, of course, with Rethug apologists/acolytes, speaking truth is not one of the seven basic food groups, so I guess your answer won’t really make any difference.
Never mind.
SFAW
Wile E @152
See, if you had kept your yap shut, he would not have been able to respond intelligently to the rest of us calling bullshit on his “3/5 clause” statement. Now he can just cut-and-paste your answer. (Well, actually, that raises the question: if he cuts-and-pastes your answer, does that mean he responded intelligently? It’s kinda like a Turing test. [But don’t tell caz that Turing was gay, OK?])
Yutsano
@Tattoosydney: Man the things I miss when I don’t call in sick even though my voice has currently gotten me phone numbers for three toads.
Hi hon.
@asiangrrlMN: Hi hon to you too. I’ll gently prod you about earlier meltdown later.
morzer
@General Stuck:
They motor-scooterized and took it to the last Glenn Beck Faith Will Rob You Blind rally…. Weaponization isn’t that far around The Corner
Also too:
Jeebus may not like the willfully stupid, but that doesn’t matter, so long as they cheer when he dives into the endzone for the Broncos.
morzer
@Caz:
My expectations of people who can’t distinguish between “its” and “it’s” were never high, and you have failed to fulfill them triumphantly.
morzer
@Caz:
You certainly passed your BS requirements. Shame you didn’t get an education along the way.
Yutsano
@Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther:
Lord I hope she does. Otherwise a Marine from New York may be slightly put out.
Triassic Sands
I’ll bet they skipped the “3/5” language because they’re too stupid to understand fractions.
@Mary:
And the thoroughly reasonable counterargument is that when a party of “originalists” is trying to hold up a document as something permanent and immutable, it is instructive to emphasize that hugely significant changes have been made because the original document and the men who wrote it WERE WRONG!
Jebediah
@Caz:
Are your teeth brown?
Jebediah
@Caz:
Because that is approximately how full of shit you are.
Twasn’t liberals who turned the Constitution into toilet paper, dillweed.