Hello Senate Floor Friends, its' been a while since I posted but Slate had a great article entitled "What House Republican's left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document" that I felt I had to share. To those of you who hadn't heard, the new GOP controlled House of Representatives decided that they were going to start the session with a reading of the Constitution. Their version, not the actual version. The article makes some really good points, which I would like to discuss. Namely, the nature of the Constitution as a flawed but still incredibly forward thinking document. There is no part of the constitution that is ever re-written. Even if we make amendments, the original text always remains. Including the references to slavery. To the lack of universal suffrage. To powers of the original federal government to tax (or lack thereof). My friends on the right always go on about the original meaning of the original text, as if it was a holy biblical document with divinity, that it is some sort of perfect statement of law. It is not, it never was, and it was never intended to be. When I first heard reports that house leaders wanted to open the session with a reading of the constitution, I thought, sure, how can anyone have a problem with that? When I heard that Scalia was going to give a presentation on Constitutional Law to members of Congress, again, I thought, hey, I would love to attend a Scalia lecture on conlaw. However, as the article points out, the GOP reading of the constitution is misguided, and legally and factually inacurate. The GOP shouldn't read an edited version of the Constitution that they believe is law, they shouldn't get to pick and choose which parts they think are relevant. I believe they should hav eread the entire Constitution, in all its' imperfect glory.