Constitutional Clarification

Statement

You may have already read the articles or seen the clips from the House floor this morning when I asked a simple question of my Republican colleagues before we began the reading of the United States Constitution.

Before the pundits pounce and the video goes viral let me state the question I was asking and why I was asking it.

My question was whether we would be reading the original constitution and then the amendments, or some kind of edited version instead. I asked because members were not informed of the details beforehand nor asked for their input. In fact, when I asked for a copy of the edited documents we would be reading, I was told by my Republican colleagues that they could not share it with me.

I was never concerned about reading the Constitution on the floor and, in fact, was eager to participate, and did so. However, I did have concerns that the Constitution we were reading was an edited product provided by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, hence his interpretation of the current language. Rep. Goodlatte is a fine and honorable man and I'm not questioning his intent. But the fact is that none of our constitutional amendments specifically deleted identified language of the original Constitution. To this day, courts continue to argue what of the original constitutional language has been superseded by Constitutional amendments. Knowing that portions of the constitution are not deleted, and not having seen the version of the constitution created by Rep. Goodlatte's editing, I would have preferred that the whole document, original language with amendments, have been read.

I was also concerned that at some point down the road, courts would try to use today's reading as a measure of Congressional intent to what the Constitution means. Thankfully Rep. Goodlatte agreed with me on the floor that the reading should not serve as any indication of Congressional intent.

As a member who takes great pride in the Constitution, has taken the oath to protect it, and studied it in law school, I would have liked the opportunity to see what edits we were being asked to read.

I would hate for someone, years down the road, to try and use a mistake we made in the reading today to serve as a substitute for the actually governing document.

Thanks.

Jay

Source