"So, we used to hear this kind of talk in the past, we're hearing it alot more these days. It's this sort of notion that the Constitution is a living, breathing, fungible document. (that) It’s words are really sort of obsolete, the principles behind it are yesterday, principles, we need new ones. The whole notion comes from this, sort of the fact that they question the original basis for it, which in the Declaration of Independence, it says that our rights come God and nature's God, from nature and God, not from the government."This begs the question: Which Constitution does Ryan uphold? The original text, which by the way the republicans deliberately omitted sections from in their phony house exercise to demonstrate their fidelity to it, or the evolved one that has been fungibled with 27 amendments over the course of 220 years?
-- Rep. Paul Ryan, Jan. 6, 2011
And, if Ryan and the GOP really believe our rights come from God, why didn't they grandstand a reading of the Holy Bible in the House instead?
But I don't believe what Paul Ryan said should be taken too lightly. If Ryan or other congressmen do not believe in or uphold all the amended sections enacted by a majority of previous congresses and states, they should be removed from office. According to his interpretation, the modern fungibled Constitution he swore to uphold in his oath as a member of the House of Representatives is not the one he claims to believe in today.
Related: Caffeinated Politics GOP Helped Prove Constitution a Living Document
3 comments:
So is Ryan saying that God declared that blacks are 3/5 of a person and that Indians don't count at all? Because that was in the orginal. And is he also implying that the principles our nation was founded on are not good enough? I don't get how he can say it's not a living document when they change it constantly to suit their purpose. These people are truly dangerous.
My, aren't we on a throw the republicans out tantrum lately. Get over it. You guys lost.
Anon 7:53, one man's throw the republicans out tantrum is another man's "Freedom from Tyranny" campaign.
Anon 3:22, what was so typical of Ryan in that statement was his automatic deflection on the Constitution to the Declaration. No where is it written that we must interpret the Constitution through the declaration. They are each entirely different stand alone documents with completely different purposes. I'm not trying to diminish the Declaration in any way, but if anything, the Constitution supercedes the declaration. Ryan's explanation defies the forward movement of progress and humanity over the course of time. His simpleton thinking lacks any metaphysical substance.
It should be considered serious business when congressmen go on the record that the Constitution they believe in is not the revised, updated and fungible version we have today. Ryan, Bachmann and King are just a few of the House members that should be questioned by the media if not federal authorities for their allegiance to our Constitution.
Post a Comment