Boehner’s first item of business wasn’t jobs or budget but instead the reading of the Constitution

I appeared on Hannity radio this afternoon and boy, did I upset his listeners. It’s not the first time I’ve ticked off the right, nor will it be the last.
I still stand by my position.
My opposition was Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel and Constitutional scholar extraordinaire. He argued that Boehner’s reading of the Constitution was a splendid way to begin the new Congressional session. I disagreed.
First, the Constitution in its original form wasn’t even read — no, Boehner (and his tea party advisers) decided not to read any part that was later amended, like the portion that banned the manufacturing and sale of alcohol, or that acknowledged slavery, or that didn’t allow women to vote.
Selective reading, I submit.
Rather, Boehner should have read the original Constitution and its Amendments to show how our country has evolved into a nation of equal rights for African Americans and women.
Breaking news: Boehner’s kindergarten-style reading to his “students” was not an awakening — he did not change any already-elected Congressman’s understanding of the Constitution. If he wanted to make sure every Congressman understood the document, he should have given 435 educated adults Constitutional multiple choice test. Instead, he chose to waste everyone’s time with a mass-reading.
Congress passes legislation with the belief that it is Constitutional. Aside from Nancy Pelosi’s embarrassing comment with regard to health care reform, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” Congress believes its’ legislation is legal and within the four corners of the Constitution.
One of the reasons why America is so great is because we have checks and balances. We have a judicial system. If a person or a state believes a law to be Constitutionally over-reaching, the courts allow for a lawsuit to be filed and arguments to be heard from both sides as to whether or not the law is, in fact, Constitutional. And, even when a lawsuit reaches the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, and a final ruling is determined, some justices may descent with the others. Great laws find their way into the judicial system and are upheld by the courts. Bad laws are struck down by the courts and, as a result, an not enforced.
During my debate with Jay, I asked him if he reads the entire Constitution before arguing his case and he said, “No.” He said something like, “When Justice Ginsburg asks me where in the Constitution my argument is applicable, I point to a certain provision.”
You proved my point, Jay.
If Congress is making a law, they should refer to the Constitution to ensure that it is essentially solid, or that it may have some questionable legal issues. But,reading the Constitution aloud is pure silliness and doesn’t change the context of any legislation.
All Americans, regardless of party affiliation, know that we have a serious budget crisis and stubbornly high unemployment numbers. Instead of wasting his first few hours as Majority Leading reading the Constitution to a few people who were watching CSPAN, Boehner should have rolled up his sleeves and jumped head-first into this mess.
Posted in Hannity, National Politics on { January 6th, 2011 } ~ 10 Comments





Marc
January 6th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Tamara:
I really love to read about or listen to your opinions. It’s great to hear you speak opposite the right wing. But…..please spellcheck your posts.
Marc
Freddy Boisseau
January 6th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Ms. Holder, I listened to your discussion with Hannity and Sekulow, and what you said during that interview in my opinion actually proved their point.
During that interview you wanted to know why they skipped over the part denying women the right to vote. I was not able to listen to the reading, but even I a graduate of community college know that the Constitution did not originally specify who could vote. That decision until the 14th Amendment was left up to the states. It is not until then that the Constitution specified that only males could vote. Prior to that some women did vote and New Jersey allowed women to vote up until 1844. So unless they left the work ‘male’ or replaced it with the work ‘individual’ when they read the 14th Amendment, I am sorry you made their point.
I do agree with you that they should of read the whole document, but from what I read the the parts they left out were those that were changed by subsequent amendments. I do not support their decision to do so, but I do understand it.
Carlgh
January 6th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Tamara, I generally agreed with you on Hannity. Boehner should have given a “constitution” speech pointing to areas where he believes that the Courts, the Administration, Congress, and the Federal government are overstepping. There is a movement to have a “Constitutionality” section included in every bill. THAT would be a great idea, so sections of the Constitution would be required reading during preparation of every Bill.
There should also be a requirement to repeal at least one bill prior to enacting a new one. That would start to get all the old stuff cleaned up.
In my manufacturing experience, the “bone pile” was always a good place to start a new project. It is the place where previous good ideas got scrapped because of failure.
The Constitution: “yours, mine, and ours”! « Still Standing
January 7th, 2011 at 1:35 am
[...] her webpage, “The Holder Position”, Holder continued haranguing about Congress honoring the Constitution. Not surprisingly, her [...]
Janet
January 7th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Tamara needs to go back to school and get a better education. She obviously knows nothing about the Constitution let alone the United States and what makes it great and gives us our freedom. Tammy is as bright and up to date as my granny’s whatever. She thinks she is young and fresh but is not.
Anthony
January 7th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Always great to hear your arguments Tamara and see you on Red Eye.
Speaker Boehner has brought attention to an important issue in politics and the Tea Party: talking about the significance of The Constitution. The simple act of reading this document has caused us to pay attention once again. Mission accomplished!
It’s amazing that we don’t have problems with congressmen reading speeches recognizing/about football teams, animals, stars, planets, plants, cars, clothing, NFL game broadcasts, etc. Yet we get up in arms over Congress reading the document they take an oath to uphold.
May the conversation continue!
The Hatred of the GOP & The Constitution « Attorney Legal Blog
January 7th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
[...] vile dripping from her mouth about the reading pushed my blood pressure over the top. (Here is her blog post about the show and her fawning liberal commentators.) She did not, or would not, understand why the reading was of the amended constitution; even after [...]
Gary
January 7th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Jay took you to the cleaners. You were a bit out your league debating this with him. I believe it became more comical than it did informative. You just couldn’t keep up, you made one statement and repeated it over and over and over.
We are or we were all taught in school about the consitution, 45 years later when a person becomes an elected official, it isn’t a bad idea to remind that person why he is the position he/she is in now.
Marc
January 8th, 2011 at 12:25 am
Tamera….
Get your facts straight before going on air with Jay. That was Embarresing for you. I cant believe you said “…boy did i upset his listeners..” are you kidding me? Back up your statements next time.
marc
January 8th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
wow thanks for deleting my comment.. your a joke.