C&C – the other approach to the Constitution

Dinocrat says One side cheered, one side booed. It provides for a good comparison and contrast.

First is the “have preferred that it be read in its entirety” idea. Why? If the idea is to recite the law of the land that the members swore to uphold and defend, you don’t need then entire history of the law including all sections that have been modified or repealed. So why the preference for history? What is the hidden agenda? Why is it not stated constructively?

This also gets interesting when the idea of costs gets pulled into the discussion. Reducing the reading to only the Constitution as it stands as law today means less time and hence, less cost. It seems rather hypocritical to want to spend more and then to complain about how much is being spent.

The other comparison and contrast is tone. “Republicans wasting all that money” casts judgment on a group rather than criticizes a specific behavior from a group properly identified with that behavior. The “clever in its way” implies some sort of superior point of view, above that cleverness. Then there’s the ability to predict post hoc showing a bias in the title phenomena – which ignored the reality of the fact that the reading was a bipartisan activity. Some of the references used to support the thesis also had indicative titles: “cult of the Consitution” is demeaning to the foundational governance documents and very typical of the ridicule tactic that is a part of a pattern.

There is a difference. It is visible. It is a choice that people make or it is made for them.

Comments are closed.