Pointlessly. American voters delivered reasonably clear messages to Congress in last November's election; they want limits put on the national government. And the voters want Congress to work on the business of the country, not play partisan games. Democrat Jay Inslee, among others, is unhappy about those messages. That's the most likely explanation for the silly obstructionism shown in this video, where Inslee goes on and on, trying to delay the reading of the Constitution.
Was there a point to this obstructionism? No. Will it make him even more disliked by the Republican majority? Yes. Is he likely to accomplish anything in this session with that attitude? Probably not. Would his district be better off if Inslee resigned so that we could have an effective representative? Most likely.
(In theory, Inslee represents Washington's 1st district. In practice, he mostly represents special interest groups with agendas that hurt the 1st district. For instance, the district is heavily dependent on trade, but Inslee has been a consistent opponent of trade liberalization.)
Last October, the Seattle Times, in an extremely funny editorial, endorsed Inslee, claiming that big spender Inslee is "worried about the deficit and is ready and positioned to do something about it". Since he is no longer positioned to do something about the deficit, perhaps the Times will withdraw their endorsement.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(There may be another reason for Inslee's adolescent behavior. He is, as everyone (except perhaps the editorial board of the Seattle Times) knows, planning to run for governor. But recent moves by the current governor, Christine Gregoire, suggest that she may be planning to run for a third term — which would, probably, make it impossible for Inslee to move into the governor's mansion any time soon.)
Posted by Jim Miller at January 07, 2011 07:01 AM | Email ThisI would call it an act of symbolism fully supported by the majority of Americans who reject the unconstitutional, socialist legislation (Healthcare, etc) rammed through by the 111th Congress, a Congress who played loose with long established rules and spent us to the edge of insolvency. Your people had their chance and were overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of voters. So sit and watch, Bruce, as the adults now try to save the reputation and substance of our Constitutional Republic.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 7, 2011 08:02 AMMandatory
Posted by: swatter on January 7, 2011 08:25 AMIf a congressman thinks a fellow congressman is a fool, he calls him "honorable". If he knows a fellow congressman is a fool, he calls him the "very honorable and distinguished", or something similar.
And Orbusmax beat both of us, mostly because I was too disgusted to do a post yesterday.
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 7, 2011 08:54 AMInslee's trumped up question and commentary along with Jesse Jackson Jr's was staged for the lapdog media. This was an attempt to obsfuscate and was ignorant on its face because they knew that media lemmings would not notice. Progressives like Inslee are out to try and sabotage the new leadership of the House at every turn and continue their ongoing sabotage on the meaning of the Constitution.
Please note that Inslee is positioning himself to run for Gov. in 2012 and will be absent from Congress much of next year - if Gregoire doesn't run again - for which there is a slight chance. It's even money that he would be worse the current Gov. Time to wake up people or concede to falling off the cliff.
Posted by: KDS on January 7, 2011 09:03 AMDoes he use the original document sans all amendments? Does he use the version that was in effect before the 20th Amendment? Or perhaps he uses a version that has not yet been amended, more or less making it up as he goes along?
To both Democrats and Republicans - is it not true that the Founders envisioned a government limited in power? Is it not true that those limitations are contained within the Constitution?
How do your recent legislative efforts of carte blanche power through the Commerce Clause align with the intent and purpose of the Constitution as created by the Founders?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 7, 2011 09:10 AMThis moron should be roadkill for Guv in '12.
Posted by: yaddacubed on January 7, 2011 09:17 AMDimocrat politicians appeal and pander to the ignorant fools whose votes they purchase with crumbs, trinkets and pork. The ruling class elites know exactly what Obongo, Pelosi and Co are attempting to pull off, and count on the fake media to sway enough of the "Dancing With the Stars" crowd to win elections.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 7, 2011 09:38 AMI'd call it a start since most of the imbeciles of Inslee's ilk don't even care to read the bill's put before them before they vote on them. They merely follow in lockstep with how their party leaders tell them to vote. What's the harm in being forced to read the document they're sent to Washington to uphold in the first place? I find that a refreshing breath of fresh air after the last 4 years of stench emanating from the HOR (an appropriate Homonym if I've ever heard one).
Posted by: Rick D. on January 7, 2011 09:44 AMAlso worth noting is that Democrats never made much of a stink when Code Pink repeatedly interrupted Congress during the Bush years. The usual double standard.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 7, 2011 10:14 AMI'd call it educational, Bruce. Clearly, most of the clowns in congress have never read it.
Posted by: Bastiat Fan on January 7, 2011 10:43 AMI'm amused at the the constant squawking and hubris of liberals against everything sacred to middle America all while giving us crocodile tears about how much the are for/do to middle America.
In watching interviews and reading transcripts lately it is striking how increasingly shrill and condescending they have become in the loss of their 'permanent majority'. The two worst are the unintelligible Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the ever rude Anthony Weiner.
My God, who elects these people? It's one thing to vote for those who match your ideology; it's quite another to vote for fools and clowns who match your ideology ... and rude ones at that.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on January 7, 2011 12:16 PMAlthough Inslee does add some partisan rhetoric to the exchange...there's a legitimate message in there too. His point adds credence to the point that the Constitution is a living document and not static. If it were static, the Republicans would have read the original text from the 1700's and not the version by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
Posted by: Matty on January 7, 2011 12:47 PMBTW - my favorite call to Inslee staffer ever was when I mentioned Pol Pot. Finally the child porn surfer stopped and yelled back that was an unfair comparison. That is how far it had to go to see any life from them. If only we could strip citizenship? Yes we would finally be rid of them and have two new Countries.
Since enlightened, elitist progressive liberals can't be bothered to actually read the document that has guided our system through the generations, let me outline;
It has a preamble ("We The People ...") and seven Articles that set up the structure of the federal govenment in relation to the citizens and to the states, including an amendment process (Article 5).
Under this amendment process, we get the 'fine tuning', if you will of our system and it's a very messy process.
I notice many libs want to pounce on "shouldn't we read the original rather than the ammended version"? Of course we should, simply to show the strength, genius and fairness in the structure of the process. It does no good to show the results when you don't show what was in the original that we felt needed correcting.
I refer mostly to Article 1, Section 2, the 3/5 rule concerning "other persons" (slaves) that libs are shoving in peoples faces as a talking point recently. They don't acknowledge that the wording is actually ... "and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." So, it's actually much worse than they've been told.
but ...
Read the back and forth fighting and the reasoning behind the 3/5 rule in debating the Constitution in the context of the times and you will find it fascinating. It was a way to deny apportionment and reduce the power of pro slave states. It was also abolished with the 13th ammendment.
We currently have 27 ammendments. The first 10 were ratified all at once in the 1700's and are known as The Bill Of Rights.
The remaining 17 ammendments range from ground breaking (13, 14, 15, 19) to housekeeping (17, 20, 22, 23) to just plain stupid (16, 18, 21, 27).
It's a document well worth reading, even if you think you hate it. Not just the document, but read the history of it's making. It's hard to believe something like that came from such a horrific world we had in the 1700's with slavery, poverty, wars and opression.
Posted by: James on January 7, 2011 01:06 PMAlso, many of you have pointed out that you think some House reps may not have ever read the thing.
You're at least partially right. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) skipped the swearing in yet showed up later to vote.
Apparently those two guys don't understand the Constitution and the folks now running the House don't understand the Constitution well enough to know that non-members don't get to vote on Bills.
Or maybe instead of reading to a near empty chamber the House Republicans could just read it as homework?
Utter insanity. As Ron pointed out, they were reading the document that had just sworn to uphold.
*Prog's believe this unless the molester is from a victim class. They then believe as fact that the governement should dictate that white men are evil and thus the real problem.
Posted by: Dengle on January 7, 2011 04:57 PMbut what would you call the reading of the constitution on the house floor for the first time in US history?
Overdue.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 7, 2011 05:09 PMMaybe the motivation is to embarrass the country on a world-wide stage. Maybe to show the world what awful people we were 100 years ago (based on 21st century mores). Is that it? Sure seems like it. So why is it so important to try and make our founding document, and our founders, look bad to 21st century eyes?
Crazy.
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 7, 2011 05:10 PMKeep it up. 2012 can't come soon enough.
Posted by: Attila on January 7, 2011 05:29 PMTheir complete and utter hypocrisy needs more light of day with a wider audience of Americans.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on January 7, 2011 05:59 PMCall it a stumble out of the gate. Or a failure to find the gate entirely. Veteran Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and freshman Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) failed to make the official swearing in ceremony yesterday, a violation of the Constitution that has sent Republicans scrambling and briefly brought an end to the new majority's push to repeal the health care reform law.
While the rest of the House was being made official in the chamber, Sessions and Fitzpatrick were outside the room at an event for Fitzpatrick supporters. The pair reportedly took their oath to a televised image from inside the chamber. Huffington Post's Ryan Grimm reports the event was part of fundraiser for Fitzpatrick.
Freshly-minted House Rules Committee chair David Dreier (R-CA) had to recess hearings on repealing the health care law after he learned that Sessions, a member of the committee, was not in fact a Constitutionally-valid member of the 112th Congress. Sessions had been casting votes all day like the duly-sworn members on the committee. [...]
The action is now behind the scenes, as Speaker John Boehner tries to persuade House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to agree to a unanimous consent decree that would make all the work Sessions and Fitzpatrick did over the past day count retroactively.
Physician heal thyself.
It certainly wasn't respect.
P.S. - I think every new Congress ought to open with reading the Constitution - at least until they get it through their thick skulls that the Constitution empowered a limited government with all other rights left to the people or the states.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 7, 2011 06:10 PMInslee would not have had a leg to stand on if the Constitution, as amended, had been read.
I propose we just unanimously consent to agree that none of the bad things ever happened and move on. :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on January 7, 2011 06:27 PMThe perfect solution would have been to read the document starting with the original and proceed to each and every amended document and the history of the changes.
Of course then they would complain about wasting time.
Let them have their straw dogs, have their tantrums and whine like 3yr olds about their imagined slights. The grown-ups have things under control ... which is what they are really whining about.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on January 7, 2011 06:34 PMI propose we just unanimously consent to agree that none of the bad things ever happened and move on. :-D
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 7, 2011 06:27 PM
That's an interesting assertion - provide some credible evidenceand we'll consider accordingly. You are in over your head, just like a typical progressive - you obfuscate and propagandize.
@31 - The flimsy argument that they didn't read the constitution - just someone's interpretation of the constitution is laughable and bogus. They read the amendments and did not bother reading the portion that was superceeded because it had been stricken and amended and is now irrelevant. You have just said that you would not accept the constitution - which is what was read and your disdain for the constitution, along with the progressive wing is noted.
Posted by: KDS on January 7, 2011 07:22 PMI also recall southern politicians of a certain party led the charge to defeat the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among them were Sen Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee and Bill Clinton's mentor, Arkansas Sen J William Fullbright.
Forty-seven years later Dimocrats still hold underclass blacks in bondage through continued dependence on failed, family-destroying welfare programs.
Dimocrat = The Party of Eternal Bondage to the State
Posted by: Saltherring on January 7, 2011 10:38 PMMaybe they believe the entire document should have been read, instead of just the selected portions the Republicans chose? Just because the Republicans care nothing for the original intent of our Founding Fathers does not mean the Democrats cannot take this opportunity to demonstrate their own deep familiarity with the history of our country. (Indeed, note that the Democrats recognized immediately which sections the Republicans had omitted. Now, which party needs schooling on our Constitution?)
Apparently those two guys don't understand the Constitution and the folks now running the House don't understand the Constitution well enough to know that non-members don't get to vote on Bills.
Mike, we liberals need to pay more attention. The Republicans said they would read the document. They did not say they would listen, care, understand, comprehend, appreciate, honor, respect, or obey our Constitution. Remember the lying adulterers, bathroom queens, boy-chasers, and racist rapists who all voted to remove President Clinton from office? It's like that, always and forever.
Maybe the motivation is to embarrass the country on a world-wide stage.
The teabaggers long ago accomplished this completely.
Posted by: tensor on January 7, 2011 11:14 PM"They read the amendments and did not bother reading the portion that was superceeded because it had been stricken and amended and is now irrelevant."
No, I don't think what I said, or what Inslee asked is flimsy. Your comment shows you almost understand it.
What you don't understand is that nothing in the Constitution is superseded or stricken. The Constitution has only been amended.
There is one possible exception; the 18th amendment which was repealed
by the 21st amendment.
Let's hope the next time the House decides to do a floor show for fun & giggles that it includes dancing girls and pyrotechnics.
ps. And KDS, before you go accusing me of being over my head, either learn to spell or how to use a spell checker. :-)
My present hope for our country is that the hard left spends decades or longer on the outside looking in. Hopey-changey, proven to be nothing but jack-booted socialism, was summarily rejected by the American people last November. The Dimocrats' attempt at a wholesale makeover of our government and society through fraud and deception is dead. Our country will survive and hopefully not forget what Obongo, Pelosi, Reid and Co attempted to pull off.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 8, 2011 07:15 AMOff topic - "jack-booted socialism" Your misunderstanding and misapplication of the term, jackboot, and its connotations is funny, but par for the course.
Which is worse - missing the swearing in of your oath, or blatantly breaking it by dodging taxes, taking bribes, and giving political kickbacks to your spouse? I certainly don't recall your indignation over Dingel, Jefferson, and Feinstein...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 8, 2011 08:07 AMThe problem of holding events in the U.S. Capitol (i.e., the Capitol Visitors Center) for political or campaign activities is explained in the House Ethics Manual: they "are supported with official funds and hence are considered official resources."
While Fitzpatrick appears to have violated House ethics rules, Sessions deserves special attention for reserving the room for Fitzpatrick. This may not violate any rules, but as a member of the Rules Committee, he should know better! Of course, he shouldn't have voted before he was sworn in, either.
But it is certainly within the House's constitutional authority to vote the problem down the memory hole:
Resolved, That-- (1) the votes recorded for Representative-elect Sessions and Representative-elect Fitzpatrick on rollcalls 3 through 8 be deleted and the vote-totals for each of those rollcalls be adjusted accordingly, both in the Journal and in the Congressional Record; [...]
House Fixes Votes-Without-Oaths Problem
"In the four minutes allowed for debate on the measure, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) took a swipe at the Republicans who lead the reading of the constitution on the House floor, saying that on the same day that reading took place "the constitutional requirement for oath was violated." [...] The resolution to correct their voting record passed the House today by a vote of 257 to 159 "
You all keep up the good work lambasting Inslee for asking about where the version of the Constitution read but not followed came from, cuz that is the constitutionally relevant question of the day. LOL!
False.
Yes, Weiner fits his name perfectly. If this is the best the Democratic minority can do, look forward to many Democratic minorities to come.
Posted by: pudge on January 8, 2011 08:48 AMI am certain any time now you will take Rangel and Pelosi and the rest of the swamp they built to task for their willful and flagrant violation of the oath they took...
I mean, you are a man of reason, logic, and rationality, correct?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 8, 2011 09:00 AMYou are one principled Constitution knowledgable Republican. Hey! As long as my party is in the majority, rules, ethics and law be damned!
Good for you.
My recollection of the term jack-boot, or jackboot, eminate from the pre WWII National SOCIALIST Party, or Nazis, who used a world-wide economic collapse to seize power by deception, lies, promotion of groupthink, subversion, hate, newsmedia corruption, racial strife, and ultimately violence by "Brownshirt" thugs. Obongo and Co attempted to use all but the latter during our present crisis, but recall he did propose a "national police force" during his campaign. Citizen backlash in the form of Tea Parties kept Obongo's jack boots off the backs of Americans.
The hard left has been "outed" and rejected by the American public. May the evil of its motives and ambitions ever be distained by freedom-loving people.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 8, 2011 09:11 AMThe Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Apparently reading the Constitution on the floor of the House did nothing for the understanding of the Constitution for those 257 members who voted for a resolution allowing this provision to be ignored without censure.
And clearly the floor show of reading a CRS amended version of our Constitution made no impression on the commenter here who made fun of a man's name, when as a duly sworn member of the House of Representatives, Weiner properly upheld that oath to defend the sanctity of the Constitutional requirement in Art VI Clause 3.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on January 8, 2011 09:51 AMps. And KDS, before you go accusing me of being over my head, either learn to spell or how to use a spell checker. :-)
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 8, 2011 07:15 AM
Is that all you have ? Keep throwing up your strawman arguments. I'll bet you agree with Ezra Klein's take on the constitution.
"What you don't understand is that nothing in the Constitution is superseded or stricken. The Constitution has only been amended.
There is one possible exception; the 18th amendment which was repealed
by the 21st amendment."
I understand that Amendments supersede the original parts of the constitution that were not read. If the portions of it that had been amended and were not applicable had been read, the Democratics would have whined that it took too long because it would have taken considerably longer.
Inslee raised the point with the question, but after he heard the direct answer once, he belabored it several more times and keep getting the same direct answer every time - that part was flimsy.
Posted by: KDS on January 8, 2011 09:51 AMLet's hope the next time the House decides to do a floor show for fun & giggles that it includes dancing girls and pyrotechnics.
ps. And KDS, before you go accusing me of being over my head, either learn to spell or how to use a spell checker. :-)
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 8, 2011 07:15 AM
Is that all you have ? Keep throwing up your strawman rhetoric. I'll bet you agree with Ezra Klein's take on the constitution as displayed by your contemptuous attitude.
"What you don't understand is that nothing in the Constitution is superseded or stricken. The Constitution has only been amended.
There is one possible exception; the 18th amendment which was repealed
by the 21st amendment."
False, I understand that Amendments supersede the original parts of the constitution that were not read. If the portions of it that had been amended and were not applicable had been read, the Democratics would have whined that it took too long because it would have taken considerably longer.
Inslee raised the point with the question, but after he heard the direct answer once, he belabored it several more times and keep getting the same direct answer every time - that part was flimsy.
They were the dangerous duo and theirs was the administration that introduced America to "scorched earth" politics. Since then, politics in general and definitely Democrat/liberal politics has devolved into brawl mentality.
What happened to the days when those elected were above such ugliness? Aren't those "gentlemen" and "ladies" supposed to be the leaders and role models?
Now we are left with thugs and microphones. Taking their lead from those microphoned thugs we are left with the vicious invective of those on HA, MoveOn and HuffPo, which has moved into the general hatefulness we find in the streets and increasingly in homes.
It's disgraceful.
Welcome to yet another result of liberalism. How proud are you guys?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on January 8, 2011 10:50 AMI think that is what has Inslee so riled. The lavish plutocracy he enjoyed under Pelosi will now be curtailed.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 8, 2011 11:05 AMI don't propose any amendments to the Constitution.
Neither do I support any of the proposed changes to the Constitution routinely bandied about by the Bolshevik Republican Party
(e.g. Flag burning, Balanced budget, Restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties, Repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship, ...)
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 8, 2011 11:28 AM
The 14th Amendment sorely needs judicial review - IMO, it has been applied out of context for many years now. Balanced budget amendment needs extensive debate - our budget deficit is an abuse of power and the Federal Government has too much power and must be reigned in. I support the abolishment of the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce after a road map has been reviewed and voted on. It must be done in a thoughtful way and delegated to the States in an incremental fashion.
Do you support Ezra Klein' s position on the constitution ?
Posted by: KDS on January 8, 2011 11:48 AMI suppose liberals wanted to read the complete text in order to show that the constitution was flawed. That's ironic since the flaws in question were subsequently amended. Surely everyone agrees that amendments are good (both those specific amendments and the amendment process in general); in fact, conservatives have been behind most amendments that have been discussed in recent years. But this is political theater, and at the moment the Republicans want to convey the simplistic talking point "constitution infallible" while the Democrats want to convey "constitution fallible". A pox on both parties.
dEngle asks "Which part of the Constitution would you like to be amended next? The 2nd Amendment or the words limited government?" Well, I can't find the words "limited government" in the Constitution. I would like the 2nd Amendment clarified syntax-wise as well as significantly limited, but that's politically unrealistic for the forseeable future.
Posted by: Bruce on January 8, 2011 11:51 AM@59 - Do you support Ezra Klein' s position on the constitution ?
Posted by: KDS on January 8, 2011 11:54 AMThere is no birthright citizenship -- not in the way being discussed now -- in the 14th Amendment. There's TWO requirements for citizenship mentioned, and you are ignoring the second: you have to be born in the U.S. AND SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION.
Not one or the other. Both.
That said, I think we strengthen our country by encouraging participation from immigrants by making citizens of their offspring ... yes, even the ones here illegally, and I am not anxious to spend my time trying to change our government's current understanding of the Constitution in this regard.
We'd be much better served working to get the government to finally accept the fact that all U.S. states must respect the rights and privileges of all U.S. citizens, something most liberals oppose.
There is birthright citizenship, even though it has exceptions for invading armies and the such. There is not an exception for illegal immigrants. Can you can craft a way that Congress can define the US jurisdiction to exclude illegal immigrants but be prevented by this text from excluding slaves? Jurisdiction, to my plain reading, means residency and illegal immigrants are by definition residents of the US.
And this is exactly why, KDS, Ezra says that the Constitution is simply interpreted by the political class to go along with their politics. See DOMA, and full faith and credit. See the states that are making the health care law illegal to enforce, and the supremacy clause.
The right, and arrogant people like pudge, insist their reading of the Constitution is the one true understanding. It's easy to see why that's bullshit: amendments are crafted to pass with 2/3rd supermajorities and then get ratified by 3/4th of all states. That is, they do not represent the ideas of just one person but the thoughts of all who passed them into (supreme) law.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 8, 2011 01:55 PMThe right, and arrogant people like pudge, insist their reading of the Constitution is the one true understanding. It's easy to see why that's bullshit: amendments are crafted to pass with 2/3rd supermajorities and then get ratified by 3/4th of all states. That is, they do not represent the ideas of just one person but the thoughts of all who passed them into (supreme) law."
Klein showed his disdain for the constitution with his commentary insinuating that it was outdated - being over 100 years old and was confused. How about the "Communist Manifesto' by Marx - it's over 100 years old also. Ezra Klein (and you) are typical progressivists - who try at every turn to dissemble and distort the meaning of the constitution to suit the statist agenda, then act like petulant brats when it is read by the opposition. I very much doubt if you have much regard for the constitution as displayed by your actions, not your rhetoric. Why didn't the Democrat majority read the constitution previously for the House of Representatives if they thought it was so important ?
You can't let go of the fact that your attitude about the constitution has been exposed and you will blame it on conservatives if they have a different view about it, rather than attempting to understand why. One true reading does not a true understanding make - you are making up stuff again. What it does is set the tone for Congress, who are elected to serve the people, which they seem to have forgotten. The reactions to this event are very telling.
Posted by: KDS on January 8, 2011 02:39 PMDo you think allowing slavery was eventually outdated? The restrictions on who could vote? The lack of a Bill of Rights?
Do you think the constitution is now perfect forever and no more parts of it will ever be outdated?
Why do you think the framers (and the authors of virtually every constitution or governing document, for that matter) created an amendment process?
It is lazy to let political discourse devolve into "zomg the Constitution" at every turn, which is why someone like pudge is smart but isn't a serious thinker. The Constitution has different meanings to different people, and that was true 200 years ago and it's true today. It's arrogant to assume there is one true reading.
I think reading the Constitution on the House floor is a gimmick, or at best symbolic. It is condescending to the institution to insist that the document must be read on the floor in a merry-go-round manner for them to understand it. America is a great country and the Constitution is a great document, but in no age -- not during World War 2, not during the Civil War, not after Watergate -- was the Constitution read on the floor. In the end, it's not really a big deal that the document was read but if we spent every legislative hour reading historical documents and naming post offices instead of acting on the deficit and the economy then that'll be quite a shame.
However, I won't be surprised if this becomes a new House tradition. And, so what? Progressives will still think the words have different meanings than conservatives, and everyone will smile on camera to read one of the world's most important documents and nothing will change.
And in the end only Anthony Kennedy's opinion on the Constitution will matter most of the time.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 8, 2011 08:03 PMKDS, it sounds like you just made this up, because there are only a handful of outmoded parts. I would guess less than 300 words in total, but you can make the case that what you siad isn't bullshit.
Posted by: John Jensen on January 8, 2011 08:14 PMCorrect Bruce....they are not spelled out. As soon as I hit post I knew that would get your "panites in a bunch". What I was getting at was the idea of it. My fault for not making that clear.
As for Inslee and you and McD....you believe the gov should make the decisions for the populace. The Gov is what is best and should control everything. More is better....the founders didn't believe in more gov, but less....just enough. Remember they tried hardly any gov, but it didnt' work. Most know you need some gov to have society, because there are evil folks....remember they founders loved God..not the Devil....
Syntax-wise? As in the militia clause? Or just how the Constitution itself is written. Maybe if it was was written in Eubonics(sp?) that would help. :-)
Thanks for replying...
Posted by: Dengle on January 8, 2011 10:41 PMGonna let your hypocrisy just wave out there for all to see? You're more concerned with a symbolic action delayed a day, rather than actual violation of an oath? How typical...
John Jensen,
There is a birthright citizenship PROVIDED you are subject to the laws of the US. Just being born here is not enough - you must ALSO be subject to US jurisdiction. That's the meaning of AND. It's not an exemption or specific case like you're trying to make it - it's a blanket requirement.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 9, 2011 06:54 AMSo what's your point? Isn't everyone in the US (except those with diplomatic immunity) subject to US jurisdiction? Including those who entered illegally?
Posted by: Bruce on January 9, 2011 12:22 PMHow would I prove I'm a citizen? It's relatively easy to produce a US birth certificate. But how would I prove my parents were citizens? Sure, they might have birth certificates, but since those wouldn't prove their citizenship, wouldn't I have to prove that their parents were citizens? Would we all have to trace our lineage back to legal immigrants? (Were the Pilgrims legal immigrants?)
And what if someone was born here to illegal immigrants? What would we do with them? What if an adult had been born and lived all his life in the US -- would we send him back to the country his parents came from? What if that country didn't accept him?
Posted by: Bruce on January 9, 2011 03:49 PMhttp://www.slate.com/id/2280250/
Posted by: Shelley on January 9, 2011 08:25 PMNo. There is birthright citizenship for people subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is what the Constitution says.
There is not an exception for illegal immigrants.
That is unclear at best, by any honest accounting.
Can you can craft a way that Congress can define the US jurisdiction to exclude illegal immigrants but be prevented by this text from excluding slaves?
Of course: someone who is a here illegally is obviously from another nation, subject to ITS jurisdiction. They are not here legally, so we never accepted them into our jurisdiction.
How is that had?
Jurisdiction, to my plain reading, means residency
Obviously not, as then it would include the people it was specifically intended to exclude. You obviously don't even understand the historical context of the 14th Amendment. (Don't worry, you're in good company: the minority in the McDonald gun case didn't understand it, either, though it was a different part of said Amendment.)
And this is exactly why, KDS, Ezra says that the Constitution is simply interpreted by the political class to go along with their politics.
By many, if not most, of that class, yes. Not by the people I admire, no. Not by Senator Tom Coburn, for example. Certainly I've never interpreted the Constitution to go along with my politics.
See the states that are making the health care law illegal to enforce, and the supremacy clause.
The health insurance law (which had almost nothing to do with health care) is, in fact, clearly unconstitutional, and it already IS illegal to enforce.
The right, and arrogant people like pudge, insist their reading of the Constitution is the one true understanding.
When I can back it up and it's entirely clear, yes. When there's room for disagreement from the history or text, I don't.
It's easy to see why that's bullshit: amendments ... do not represent the ideas of just one person but the thoughts of all who passed them into (supreme) law.
This is not an actual argument against anything I've ever said, or any position I've ever held.
It is lazy to let political discourse devolve into "zomg the Constitution" at every turn
It is illegal for the government to violate the Constitution.
What's lazy is rejecting the Constitution, as you do, simply because it gets in your way. You, like many (if not most) liberals, despise the rule of law. You believe in the rule of man, instead. That is, you believe in injustice.
which is why someone like pudge is smart but isn't a serious thinker
Right. So because you do not value the Constitution, therefore someone who DOES value it isn't serious.
Congratulations: I've never seen such a nonserious argument about someone else's alleged nonseriousness.
The Constitution has different meanings to different people
Irrelevant, of course. Like I said, it's obvious you don't believe in the rule of law. You believe in the rule of man. Fine, but this country is built upon the rule of law.
It's arrogant to assume there is one true reading.
I never have assumed any such thing. As usual, you're lying. I do not assume anything: I study and interpret and come to conclusions after careful consideration of the facts and evidence.
Right.
But how would I prove my parents were citizens?
See above.
Sure, they might have birth certificates
See above.
... but since those wouldn't prove their citizenship
Oh, I see. No, you are incorrect to assume that anyone's citizenship would be taken from them. That would never be workable, not just because of the practical considerations, but because it is clearly unjust and probably runs afoul of ex post facto prohibitions, in spirit if not in fact. No, it would be a "from this day forward" thing.
This is actually a problem that the people of the Dominican Republican are struggling with right now, because they have enacted similar laws, and I don't know if they are retroactive, but they are at least having a retroactive effect, where people born there, but of Haitian descent, are having trouble proving citizenship, which is something that needs to be done often in DR.
I doubt any proposal having any chance of success in the U.S. would be retroactive. It seems impossible on the face of it.
What????? A person who is here illegally isn't subject to our legal authority (the general definition of jurisdiction)? Where on earth did you get that idea?
Posted by: Bruce on January 9, 2011 11:19 PMIt was necessary to deny the plain text of the 14th Amendment, which clearly and obviously says that any person born in a state is a citizen of the United States. Although the 14th Amendment also refers to "Indians not taxed" as the persons not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, modern right-wingers simply ignore this reality and substitute their own, fabricating a second requirement for citizenship where none exists.
This is the same mentality which allows them to read selected passages from our Constitution aloud, and assign whatever meaning(s) they want, whilst ignoring the clear and unambiguous requirement that Members of Congress swear (or affirm) to uphold our Constitution before voting on bills.
Posted by: tensor on January 10, 2011 02:17 AMYep John Jensen, because there's been no hateful imagery on the left, none at all.
Yes.
What if one or both parents is dead or out of contact with him?
He only needs one parent, obviously.
And, if his parents were born after the law took effect, how would he prove they were citizens?
Their birth certificates. Quoting you: It's relatively easy to produce a US birth certificate.
Would it be AS easy as it is now? Nope. Still pretty easy? Yep.
A person who is here illegally isn't subject to our legal authority (the general definition of jurisdiction)?
No, you are using the wrong definition.
tensor: It was necessary to deny the plain text of the 14th Amendment, which clearly and obviously says that any person born in a state is a citizen of the United States.
It clearly and obviously says no such thing. You're lying. First, it does not say born "in a state," but born (or naturalized) "in the United States." Obviously, the U.S. is not just the sum of the states, but also includes other areas, e.g. territories and the federal district.
More importantly, however, there are two requirements: one is being born or naturalized in the U.S., and the other is being subject to its jurisdiction. You're just lying by leaving that out.
Although the 14th Amendment also refers to "Indians not taxed" as the persons not subject to U.S. jurisdiction
It does not. That is about representation, not about jurisdiction. But that does lead us to the point, which is that the point of the clause you are pretending is not in the 14th Amendment is for the purpose of excluding some people who are born here, but are for some reason not considered to be one of "us."
modern right-wingers simply ignore this reality and substitute their own, fabricating a second requirement for citizenship where none exists.
Should I believe you, or my lying eyes? Shall I quote it for you? Apparently, I must: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added for the willfully blind)
Pretending that the 14th Amendment is shorter than it is only makes your case look weaker than it is. You should instead try to demonstrate that the clause was specific to the unique position of the Indians of the time, and must not include illegal aliens of today. That's a tough case to make, perhaps even more difficult than the position on the other side: that citizenship should not be conferred upon the children of illegal aliens.
I believe the "modern right-winger" case is stronger: it only asks us to recognize that -- just like the Indians of the time -- illegal aliens are not a legal part of our system, and as such citizenship is not conferred upon their children born here. I don't LIKE it, but it's a simple extrapolation. Your case to make is that the clause doesn't even exist (the case you've made, which is obviously unconvincing), or that it must not apply to illegal aliens ... something for which you have no serious basis.
The funny thing is that in the same thread that you (indirectly) and Jensen (directly) are accusing me of reading into the Constitution whatever I want, I am defending the rationality (though not correctness) of an interpretation I would rather not have: I am in favor of having second generations of immigrants, even those who come here illegally, become citizens. I think this is better for our long-term national health, as I am not nearly convinced there's a large number of "anchor babies" that cause more of a problem than the alternative.
But the Constitution is clear: you must be born in the U.S. AND subject to its jurisdiction to be covered by the 14th Amendment. What is NOT clear is what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in a time when there is such a thing as an illegal alien (which didn't exist at the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment), but given the fact that there is a clear comparison between the non-subject Indians of the time and the illegal aliens of today, it's simply dishonest to say the Constitution requires us to confer citizenship upon the children of illegal aliens.
This is the same mentality which allows them to read selected passages from our Constitution aloud, and assign whatever meaning(s) they want, whilst ignoring the clear and unambiguous requirement that Members of Congress swear (or affirm) to uphold our Constitution before voting on bills.
You're a liar. This is, of course, not news to anyone here. A tiny number of people made an honest mistake. Perhaps a tinier number of people made a dishonest mistake; but this can only be used as evidence against the general "modern right-winger" by engaging in the most blatant and obvious fallacies.
Since you have invented the term "legal part of our system", perhaps you can define it for us, and then find it in our constitution. Illegal aliens are certainly subject to the jurisdiction of our legal system; they have to obey our laws, they are protected by our laws, they have to pay taxes, etc. An illegal alien did break a law in either entering our country or staying as long as they did, but that doesn't make them any less part of our system -- nor any less subject to US jurisdiction -- than any other lawbreaker.
And, in response to my question of how someone would prove his parents were citizens (in order to prove that he was a citizen), you said he could produce the birth certificate of a parent. But you continue to miss my whole point: If a birth certificate doesn't prove my citizenship, how would it prove my parents' citizenship? You admit that those born before the 14th amendment gets reinterpreted should be grandfathered in, but what if the parents are born after the reinterpretation? How many generations back will people need to provide birth certificates before being deported?
Posted by: Bruce on January 10, 2011 09:18 AMShrug. YOU define what makes the children of Indians not citizens, but children of illegal aliens citizens.
Illegal aliens are certainly subject to the jurisdiction of our legal system
So were the Indians.
they have to obey our laws, they are protected by our laws
So did the Indians.
they have to pay taxes, etc.
So did the Indians have to pay various taxes. "Indians not taxed" did not mean they paid no taxes at all, but they were a part of the tribe, living on a reservation, etc.
An illegal alien did break a law in either entering our country or staying as long as they did, but that doesn't make them any less part of our system -- nor any less subject to US jurisdiction -- than any other lawbreaker.
Sure it does. Our law says that they are not here properly and if caught, they will be returned to their proper jurisdiction (i.e., deported). You are misinterpreting "subject to US jurisdiction," which I've made clear by pointing out that how you interpret it would include the very Indians the clause is intended to exclude.
Wrong. We have treaties with the "Indian" nations. The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes this. We have no treaties with illegal aliens.
...and the other is being subject to its jurisdiction. You're just lying by leaving that out.
No, I'm saying the modern right wing selectively reads whatever it wants into our Constitution, then declares whatever it has so imagined or fabricated to be the only "correct" version, which you're demonstrating nicely here now. In what sense are the children of illegal aliens not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws? There's nothing in the Amendment concerning the status of the parents of the persons born or naturalized, and nothing you've typed here changes that. (In fact, that interpretation violates the entire spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, because racists could have used it to deny citizenship to children of persons who were slaves.)
Shrug. YOU define what makes the children of Indians not citizens, but children of illegal aliens citizens.
Yawn. Treaties with the "Indian" nations. Ask us a tough one, pudge. (And, for future reference, the person making the claim provides the evidence. It just so happens that your claims are ludicrously easy to disprove, but that in no way shifts the burden of proof to us.)
Posted by: tensor on January 10, 2011 03:24 PMYou're confused, Dan. Your latter accusations refer to actual Members of Congress, empowered to vote on bills. The two Members-elect who ignored the ORIGINAL INTENT of our Constitution were thus not so empowered to vote. Please try to keep up, even if you care nothing for the fundamentals of our Constitution.
Posted by: tensor on January 10, 2011 03:36 PMFalse. I explained the comparison. It's quite clear.
We have treaties with the "Indian" nations.
True, and irrelevant.
The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes this.
False. First you try to remove words from the 14th, now you try to add words to it. There is no implication of this anywhere.
I'm saying the modern right wing selectively reads whatever it wants into our Constitution, then declares whatever it has so imagined or fabricated to be the only "correct" version, which you're demonstrating nicely here now.
Wait, so let's get this straight. I am defending a position that I have said I would prefer to not be the case, and is arguable either way, and you conclude that I am reading what I want into the Constitution and saying it's the only way?
You're just messing with us, right? Again: I believe that the children of illegal aliens SHOULD BE citizens. And again: I am not saying that the Constitution MUST be read as I've described, I am, rather, arguing against the assertion that it CANNOT be read that way.
In what sense are the children of illegal aliens not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws?
In a similar way as the Indians weren't: they are, properly and legally, not legitimate participants in our system. They are outsiders, who are legitimately under a separate nation's jurisdiction.
In fact, that interpretation violates the entire spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, because racists could have used it to deny citizenship to children of persons who were slaves.
Your saying show proves you don't get what I wrote.
False. I explained the comparison. It's quite clear.
We have treaties with the "Indian" nations.
True, and irrelevant.
The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes this.
False. First you try to remove words from the 14th, now you try to add words to it. There is no implication of this anywhere.
I'm saying the modern right wing selectively reads whatever it wants into our Constitution, then declares whatever it has so imagined or fabricated to be the only "correct" version, which you're demonstrating nicely here now.
Wait, so let's get this straight. I am defending a position that I have said I would prefer to not be the case, and is arguable either way, and you conclude that I am reading what I want into the Constitution and saying it's the only way?
You're just messing with us, right? Again: I believe that the children of illegal aliens SHOULD BE citizens. And again: I am not saying that the Constitution MUST be read as I've described, I am, rather, arguing against the assertion that it CANNOT be read that way.
In what sense are the children of illegal aliens not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws?
In a similar way as the Indians weren't: they are, properly and legally, not legitimate participants in our system. They are outsiders, who are legitimately under a separate nation's jurisdiction.
In fact, that interpretation violates the entire spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, because racists could have used it to deny citizenship to children of persons who were slaves.
Your saying show proves you don't get what I wrote.
Yes, the Constitution of that time made it so. (The part the Republicans refused to read, even though they said they would.)
Illegal aliens are illegitimately participating in our system, and are subject to the jurisdiction of another nation.
Your statements about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refer to the children of illegal aliens, born to the United States. Now, show which part of the Fourteenth Amendment mentions parentage.
Posted by: tensor on January 10, 2011 04:29 PMTrue, and irrelevant.
Feeling desperate, are we? Now you're pretending that treaties equate to non-treaties, when in fact treaties occupy a central place in our Constitutional system: they even override laws.
Don't know much about laws, treaties, and our Constitution, do you? No wonder you're a Republican.
Posted by: tensor on January 10, 2011 04:51 PMHow is not taking an oath worse than breaking the oath? You and MikeBS apparently believe it's A-OK and Constitutional to take bribes and break oaths, but not to skip taking an oath.
Says a lot about your world-view... Appearance is everything, substance is nothing!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 10, 2011 05:51 PMDan, your confusion continues. The failure of the Republican Members-elect to obey our Constitution is a documented fact, recognized by the unconstitutional actions of the Republican majority afterwards. Your allegations are just allegations, recognized by no one other than yourself. Please note the difference.
...not to skip taking an oath.
An oath which has been explicitly required by our Constitution for well over two centuries, but apparently unknown to the very persons who were reading (selected portions) of our Constitution aloud. We liberals did not need any confirmation that such reading was a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money (we already knew what our Constitution contains, as shown by our immediate recognition of the omitted parts), but we appreciate the Republican majority immediately providing this confirmation. It will be the only thing of value they will provide in the 112th Congress.
Posted by: tensor on January 10, 2011 09:06 PMThey took the oath, and they corrected the situation. Your insistence that it is some great evil or grave mistake - and ignoring the blatant breaking of laws by Democrats - shows your hypocrisy.
Remove the log in your own eye before worrying about the mote in your brother's eye!
So - how about it? Rangel, Jefferson, Feinstein, on and on - blatant violations of the Constitution AND the oath they took. Will you EVER say what they did was wrong? Ever?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 11, 2011 07:11 AMAs usual, you're a liar.
Your statements about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refer to the children of illegal aliens, born to the United States. Now, show which part of the Fourteenth Amendment mentions parentage.
You apparently missed the part where this was designed to exclude the children of certain parents: Indians living among their own tribes, and diplomats.
Feeling desperate, are we?
Not at all. As you know, I have no skin in this game, and my views would be better served if you could prove my case wrong. Unfortunately, you cannot.
Now you're pretending that treaties equate to non-treaties
Not at all. Neither you nor I have given no example of this. Simply saying "we have a treaty" is meaningless and irrelevant; you'd have to show that some specific feature of the treaty bears relevance here. If you're just handwaving at the existence of a treaty, fine: we also have treaties with Mexico, and so this would even more clearly apply to Mexican nationals who are not here legitimately.
(Oh, and BTW, we no longer have treaties with these Indian "nations," which are no longer nations, but part of the U.S. Of course, at the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment, we did have such treaties.)
when in fact treaties occupy a central place in our Constitutional system: they even override laws.
Well, no. A treaty is on the same legal footing as a statute, and cannot override a statute any more than any other statute. A treaty is simply a statute from that perspective. It cannot be overridden as easily as normal statutes, however. But again ... the point is that simply saying "a treaty, a treaty!" is meaningless without mentioning a specific portion of the treaty that bears relevance, which you did not do.
The failure of the Republican Members-elect to obey our Constitution is a documented fact
False. The failure of SOME of them is a documented fact; that you attempt to push this off on all Republicans is a lie. And that you try to make a big deal out of an honest mistake exposes you as hyperpartisan and petty.
An oath which has been explicitly required by our Constitution for well over two centuries, but apparently unknown to the very persons who were reading (selected portions) of our Constitution aloud.
You are, as usual, a liar. First for your continued slander of people who had nothing to do with the problem you're referring to, and second for your lie that only selected portions of the Constitution were read.
We liberals did not need any confirmation that such reading was a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money
Says the party that increased the debt by TRILLIONS of dollars in the past couple of years, giving us a deficit MANY TIMES higher than it had ever been before? Saying that reading the document they had just sworn an oath to uphold is a waste of money?
And at the same time, you argue they should read the amended and inoperative portions of the Constitution, which would have taken up MORE time/taxpayer money?
You're kidding, right?
we already knew what our Constitution contains
Would that you knew what our Constitution does NOT contain. Then you would not waste our liberty and resources on unconstitutional laws like the health insurance bill, which is going to be struck down, in major part if not in whole, by a court the majority of which actually respects the rule of law, unlike the majority of the Democratic party.
You liberals literally do not care what the Constitution says. You have an explicit disdain for being forced to follow it, handwaving at some mythical "living document" bullshit whenever its clear meaning disagrees with your wishes, as made perfectly obvious in the Second Amendment incorporation case. And then when the Republicans read the Constitution as the entire body has sworn an oath to uphold it, you whine about some bullshit about how it's not the Constitution.
Only fools believe your nonsense. Of course, you liberals count on the fact that, as Washington State proves, many voters are fools, reelecting the very people whom the voters themselves say vote against their own interests.
(we already knew what our Constitution contains, as shown by our immediate recognition of the omitted parts)
Then I await your cries of anguish over the blatant breaking of the Constitution by Rangel, Rim Geithner, Diane Feinstein, William Jefferson, and on and on. I mean, if you know what's in it, then why did you break it?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 11, 2011 08:35 AMNo, the House voted to ignore the non-Member status of the two un-sworn Members-elect. Correcting the situation would have required taking all of those votes again. We may yet see legal actions against any of those bills which become law, due to having non-Members vote on them.
So, to sum up: they read selected portions of our Constitution aloud. They ignored one of the parts they did read. They refused to take proper corrective action, instead simply declaring, by vote, that our Constitution's requirements for Membership were not relevant. (Well, at least they've now admitted they'll vote to violate our Constitution!) Since you've said the reading of parts of our Constitution was "Overdue", I'm genuinely curious as to what value you assign to their use of our money.
Your insistence that it is some great evil or grave mistake - and ignoring the blatant breaking of laws...
No, I'm stating you're confused, conflating two different things. One is a Constitutional requirement concerning who is and is not eligible to cast votes in our House. The other is obeying laws. Each House may or may not require its' Members to obey laws, and may vote to expel a criminal. We've seen this repeatedly in previous years: Rep. Bob Ney pled guilty to taking bribes, but did not resign from his House seat; only the actions of Rep. Pelosi, who threatened to convene a session for the expressed purpose of expelling the felon Ney, caused Ney to stop taking our paychecks. In smaller ways, lawbreakers Vitter and Craig stayed in Congress, even after admitting to criminal activities.
First for your continued slander of people who had nothing to do with the problem you're referring to, and second for your lie that only selected portions of the Constitution were read.
You might want to inform those lying liberals at The Washington Times that you do not approve of their revisionist history:
The dropped words are in addition to the parts organizers intentionally omitted, such as prohibition or the infamous "three-fifths" clause relating to the counting of black slaves in state population totals for purposes of representation. Republicans said since later amendments to the Constitution changed those parts, there was no reason to read them.
As for your hand-waving about treaties, please show that a treaty with Mexico contains the same provisions, concerning jurisdiction of Mexicans living in the United States, as a treaty with an Indian nation does. Until and unless you do, you've made no case for me to refute, as I've already explained.
Posted by: tensor on January 12, 2011 09:31 PMNo, the House voted to ignore the non-Member status of the two un-sworn Members-elect.
That action corrected the problem, as I stated. It's fixed. Done.
And I see you STILL ignore the blatant shattering of their oath by Rangel, Geithner, Feinstein, and others. Again, you show you only care about appearances, not actual actions. Hypocrisy, thy name is Tensor!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 13, 2011 06:59 PMNo, it's not "fixed". Do you understand that non-Members of Congress cannot vote upon bills? Do you understand that a House cannot simply declare our Constitution's membership requirements to be optional? Those bills passed with support from persons ineligible to vote at the time they voted. To "fix" this situation, the bills must be re-introduced, and voted upon again. Maybe you should have listened to whatever selected portions of our Constitution the majority party in our House deigned to read to you.
And I see you STILL ignore the blatant shattering of their oath ...
Look, if you want to castigate the party of the admitted felon Ney, the admitted lawbreaker Craig, and the scofflaw Vitter of not holding their Members of Congress to whatever standard you imagine, please go right ahead. Just understand that non-treasonous criminal activity does not constitute "shattering" of their oaths of office. No matter what outrage you may express against the above-mentioned criminals, and the party which maintained them in power after their crimes became known, it has no place in this constitutional discussion.
Posted by: tensor on January 13, 2011 07:56 PM