More than 90 percent of Americans say that the Constitution is very important to them and two-thirds say that a “detailed knowledge” of our charter is “absolutely necessary.” Federal and state officials, whether elected or appointed, must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It is, in its own words, the “supreme law of the land.”
Liberty requires limits on government, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall explained it this way in Marbury v. Madison: “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Needless to say, a written document matters only if it is read.
If mistaking or forgetting the Constitution’s limits on Congress threatens our liberty, then those who love liberty should read our Constitution often. Those who must abide by its limits, those who swear to support and defend it, should read our Constitution often.
So who would have thought that simply reading the Constitution out loud on the House floor — by the very House members who the day before took an oath to support and defend it — would be met with such cynicism. Many belittled it as “symbolism,” as if that were a bad thing. One Democratic congressman dismissed reading the Constitution as nothing but “propaganda.” He is — seriously — the previous chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on, yes, the Constitution.
I think this just confirms why America’s founders wrote the Constitution down in the first place. It appears that some in Congress would be just fine with the American people mistaking or forgetting the limits that the Constitution places on federal power.
Only a quarter of the people who say a detailed knowledge of the Constitution is necessary say that they have such knowledge. Reading it is the least we can do.
— Orrin G. Hatch is a U.S. senator from Utah.
It's tough hearing a document of "negative liberties", as our President likes to say, read aloud. We can't have people reminded that our Government was set up by people who wanted to limit its power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToday was the only time in my life I've ever turned on C-SPAN and felt like Gene Hackman at the end of Hoosiers: I love you guys.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Orin,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe you should read it and tell me which part of the constitution allows for senators to get involved with college football and steroids in baseball and internet gambling. Stay out of our lives you hypocrit. You are one of the problems in Washington: "Do as I say, not as I do"
It seems like the word "constitution" has lost its meaning, as many words do over time and with continued use. My experience has been that many people use the word "unconstitutional" (lawyers included) as a synonym for "I don't think its fair." They're often shocked when I tell them that something may very well be unfair, but at the same time perfectly constitutional.
I think of the constitution as a series of pillars supporting a large cathedral. Sure, they may get in the way of some planned renovations but they're there for a good reason. They keep the whole structure from crashing down destroying centuries of work. Ignore or circumvent them at your peril.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust imagine (times one billion) if Republican Congressmen or, heavan forbid, a Republican President expressed such scorn and dirision for the document that represents "the supreme law of land".
You would have 100 font banner headlines in every newspaper and every leftist from the ACLU to Jerry "Jaba the Hutt" Nadler screaming FASCISM, FASCISM FASCISM!!!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSenator Hatch is correct, the Constitution is not propaganda. But, nobody has asserted that it was.
The showy, pointless, grandstanding waste of the Congress' time reading it aloud (as if that act could make a difference in any member's understanding of the document) is pure propaganda; as if this shallow, posturing gesture might show that the incoming Republican members have any better understanding of it, or greater respect for it, than anybody else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell AemJeff, at least in this Congress, they read something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@AemJef: If by "propaganda" you mean "sending a message to the people of America that the new Congress stands for this" then yes, it is propaganda.
Were you as ticked off as you are now when Stephen Colbert gave testimony in a congressional hearing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAemJeff - are you being sarcastic or trying to get a rise out of people.
Firstly, you state, "Constitution is not propaganda. But, nobody has asserted that it was". Actually in the article (that you obviously didn't read says, "One Democratic congressman dismissed reading the Constitution as nothing but “propaganda.” He is — seriously — the previous chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on, yes, the Constitution." So somebody did "say" it.
Secondly, how is reading the document a "waste of time"? But I suppose you would rather the Congress continued to pass unconstitutional laws.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason this reading counts as propaganda is because they decided to select which parts to read and which not to. So you have one party deciding which parts support their policy positions and conveniently ignoring those that don't.
Even Boehner got bored and gave a press conference before the reading was done. FoxNews of course obliged and carried the Speaker's words about the reading of the Constitution and not the Constitution itself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Liberty requires limits on government, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution."
With all due respect Senator Hatch, you are wrong. We enjoy our Liberty because of a political tradition and culture that goes back to the Magna Carta and if you wish Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic. The Constitution was an explicit statement of those traditions and norms. Great Britain and Israel have no written Constitution. Latin American after it gained its indepedence from Spain had lots of constitutions explicitly modeled after the US one yet as history has shown without a political culture to back up the words they were and are meaningless pieces of paper.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo ape Barry as below-didn't seem the document resonated with Senator Hatch until the thought of a Tea Party primary opponent in the 2012 race loomed. Lovely words, but actions will speak louder.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would I be ticked off at an American citizen, including Stephen Colbert, testifying before Congress, and what does that have to do with spending a day with the entire House getting no business done in order to try to score a political point? BobbyMike, even though you quoted me verbatim, you missed the point. There's a distinction between the document itself and using the document as prop in a dog and pony show.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@gullyborg: "@AemJef: If by 'propaganda' you mean 'sending a message to the people of America that the new Congress stands for this' then yes, it is propaganda."
Yes, that is what propaganda means. Actions by congress that "send a message" but have no legal effect are propaganda. Propaganda is not always bad.
And Senator Hatch, no one has called the constitution propaganda. They called the reading of it in congress propaganda. But you know that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOrrin Hatch, hearing those Jason Chaffetz footsteps in his ear, tosses out some conservative red meat.
Too little, and WAY too late, Orrin. You are going down.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is utterly ridiculous! All of you people on the offensive about the reading of our Constitution, in the House of Representatives, should be ashamed of yourselves.
A waste of time? What?
In a time where the very words of this document have been repeatedly urinated on- I cannot think of a MORE RELEVANT act!
Propaganda or not, this is a victory for the people of the United States. The Tea Party deserves all of the credit! And THAT is what is really eating you libs...
Go on with your bad self House of Reps!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would appear that Mr. Hatch is spreading a bit of political propaganda of his own here (Gasp! Not a politician?). As was mentioned previously, he knows darn well that it was the "reading of" and not the document itself that was being referred to by his dimwitted colleague. Also, I find this whole "you must show Constitutional grounds for any new laws" to be a bit backwards. A law can be perfectly....well, lawful and not be mentioned or even slightly referred to in the Constitution. It's what it CAN'T be that's important and that's, quite simply, unconstitutional. New laws aren't supposed to undermine or destroy our Constitutional rights/protections, but they can be perfectly righteous without having to be enumerated in that most glorious document of ours.
Aside from all that, I didn't have a problem with their reading the Constitution. I read it from time to time myself and have never written a law, so why shouldn't they? Seems like good practice to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just have to say it because it bears repeating.
The Constitution isn't perfect. But it's awfully close.
The Founders utterly nailed it. If the Constitution were a band, it would be The Beatles. If it were a sports team, it would be the 1927 Yankees. If it were a jewel, it would be the Hope Diamond. If it were a building, it would be the Taj Mahal. You get the point.
And that's a huge reason why there has never been a nation like ours. America is truly exceptional.
Call me starry-eyed, but I love the idea they're reading the Constitution in the House. Yeah man!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Moderately Libertarian: "Also, I find this whole 'you must show Constitutional grounds for any new laws' to be a bit backwards. A law can be perfectly....well, lawful and not be mentioned or even slightly referred to in the Constitution. It's what it CAN'T be that's important and that's, quite simply, unconstitutional."
Not quite. The constitution gives specific powers to congress. Everything congress does must be within these powers AND also not prohibited by the many prohibitions ("Congress shall make no law...") in the constitution.
However, while Congress's regulatory powers are limited to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, that same section begins with a broad grant of spending power:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
So while Congress can only regulate a few specific things, it can tax and spend on whatever it wants, and it does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse