Thursday, January 6, 2011

Which Constitution Should be Read, Amended or Non-Amended?

In the last few weeks, I've been noticing an interesting roster of stories that all lead to the reality that people really are just uncomfortable with American history.  We have people celebrating secession in South Carolina, a governor who declared that segregation wasn't that bad, altering Mark Twain, and now we have the Republican led U.S. House reading an amended copy of the U.S. Constitution.  Columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. reminded his readers (particularly African American readers, though all Americans should heed his words) that bearing witness to the actual past is, without question, imperative.

So, the idea of reading the U.S. Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives didn't really do too much for me.  I am of the mind that the people who fetishize the document, of late, are often among the most determined to change it to meet their political tastes.  But I did think, at the very least, that in this bit of theatre, the actual Founding Fathers' written document would be read.  Then again, I suppose reading the 3/5ths clause or the two amendments related to prohibition, for example, didn't really fit the agenda.  So, I wonder when we will actually have a reading of the actual, non-amended to take out the bad stuff, U.S. Constitution.  I won't hold my breath for this Congress.

1 comment:

Curious said...

Like most theater, the production will depend on the box-office. If nobody pays any attention to what Congress is reading, then another reading of any constitution will have little value to them.