It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Reading Between the Battle Lines of the U.S Constitution: An Annotated Guide

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:29 AM

By order of the new Republican majority, members of Congress read the United States Constitution aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives on Thursday, the day after new lawmakers were sworn in. It was an apparent first, and a reflected the influence of the Tea Party movement. Tea Party supporters say Congress could reduce taxes and spending if it would only stick to a strict interpretation of the document.

The Tea Party Movement Map

But if the Tea Party hears one thing in a reading of the Constitution, many Democrats and liberals hear another. They welcome the emphasis on the Constitution, they say, but they also believe that the framers left the language deliberately vague so that We the People of successive generations would be able to interpret it as the United States evolved.

(Before the reading could even begin, Democrats raised questions about which version of the Constitution Republicans wanted read -- would they include the part, since amended, about slaves counting as only three-fifths of a person? Republicans said they would not.)


Despite the framers’ stated intentions in the preamble to the Constitution, there is little “domestic tranquility”. The following is a guide to some of the clauses most revered, and disputed, by advocates on either side of the political spectrum


For the first time in my ATS history, I have elected not to say/write anything about what is contained in the article-Guide as presented.

I think it is high time anyone that is interested in the US and it's future-you must read it. I want to hear what you have to say about it. No influence etc from me.

I will say this. Truly a wonderful document. For you Non-US folks...... Please read it-try to understand it-and if you have questions.... here is the place to get it started.

God Bless our Founding Fathers.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:00 PM
Is there not a constitutional studier and/or know-it-all that wishes to chime in on this piece.

I find that hard to believe.

Must be a bad title. Hmmm, It caught my interest.

Maybe a rough crowd today....

Or people just don't care enough about it. Surprises me.

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by anon72
Is there not a constitutional studier and/or know-it-all that wishes to chime in on this piece.

With that kind of combative question, do you expect a response?

The annotations are nothing more than a hit piece against those who deem themselves supporters of the tea party. I quickly realized that and read no further. Then again, I did expect something such as that upon seeing the source.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:25 AM
reply to post by bozzchem

Interesting take. I can see how you came to that but could you elaborate on it a bit. What part(s) specifically?


posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:30 AM
I believe the constitution defines the parameters of government as conservatives tend to argue here...
However I also believe that the constitution is not a dictatorial article, like a chastity belt is liberating.
Ultimately IF the founding fathers wanted us to be locked in a box there would not be any
avenue to ADD anything new to the construct whatsoever... Then again read the first sentence ( i'm so confused
George! )

Both "sides" skew the thing, I think the key to our freedom is that both sides act as a counter weight.

Otherwise we would all be fat at home on welfare

Or we would be making $.07 an hour and forced to work 19 hours a day because the boss's freedom is more important.

As it is now we fight like dogs, but there is always movement... stagnation is the embodiment of tyranny, we are freer than we care to admit, because nothing stays the same from day to day. Others might argue we are free
because things stay the same, but then again that just reenforces that the friction of the two sides is also poisonous to tyranny, which is probably why the founding fathers created a debatable document.

Otherwise, one group could dictate to opponents using the document as the dictate itself.

Thanks OP

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:37 AM
The main scope of the Constitution was to limit government authority, not people's ability to be free. That's why so many claim that the document is vague. They don't want to grasp the concept that this document is as valid now as it was then.
The foresight that it took to create such a document clearly shows that these men were way ahead of their time.

top topics

log in