Progressives Want to Read Slavery Back Into Constitution

A couple of sections of the Constitution were inadvertently omitted from yesterday's reading on the floor of the House of Representatives:

The U.S. Constitution has still never been read in its entirety and in order on the House floor.

During Thursday morning’s “historic reading,” one member apparently skipped Article 4 Section 4 and part of Article 5 Section 1 when he or she inadvertently turned two pages at once, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was in charge of the reading, said on the House floor this afternoon.

Goodlatte returned to the House floor at 2:23 p.m., more than two hours after the error occurred, read the missing sections, and placed them officially in the congressional record.

But progressives are pissed that sections no longer part of the document were not read, for example, the three-fifths compromise, formerly of Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, dealing with the compromises over slavery. It's obvious why that's important to lefties. Rather than celebrate and honor the history of this nation's founding, they seek to use sections no longer part of the document to hammer those with whom they disagree. See Rachel Maddow, for example, "Three-Fifths of a Reading." Perhaps even worse is listening to this discussion with Keith Olbermann and Yale political scientist Akhil Reed Amar. Here what progressives despise is limited government, a concept that never leaves the lips of either of these men. Clearly such a complicated thing as the founding can be interpreted even twisted to fit whatever framework the advocate wishes. But to make the Founders into modern-day progressives is preposterous. And I shudder to think of the students who set foot into this professor's classroom. What an agenda! Contrast that to the discussion by Peter Berkowitz, "What Would a Return to the Constitution Entail?" (via Instapundit).

Fortified by historic Republican electoral gains at the federal and state levels last November, Tea Party activists and the new generation of Republicans led by rising star freshman Senator Marco Rubio, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor have reaffirmed their intention to return to the Constitution. To underscore that intention, Republican representatives kicked off the 112th Congress with a piece of provocative and potentially instructive political theater by, for the first time in the nation’s history, reading aloud the 224 year old document on the House floor. But what does such a return entail?

Some hard-driving conservatives see it as an opportunity to restore simplicity and purity to democratic self-government. Meanwhile, many influential progressive politicians and pundits are determined to hear in talk of return a reckless and reactionary repudiation of the modern welfare state.

In fact, an informed and thoughtful return to the Constitution will take seriously the devotion to individual liberty and limited government shared by the original Federalist proponents of the Constitution and their Anti-Federalist opponents. It will learn from the intricately separated and blended political institutions that the Constitution established to impose restraint and allow for energy and efficiency. And it should culminate in the recovery of the spirit of political moderation that the Constitution embodies and on which its preservation depends.

My sense is this is the appropriate way to read both the Constitution and the goals of the tea party. Compare that to Professor Amar's elaboration of the number of times taxation is mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8. The distinction between constitutionally enumerated powers and political sources of government expansion are completely ignored. Nothing there requires the erection of Leviathan. Again, I'm astounded how aggressive Professor Amar wants to tamp down discussion of the sources of liberty in federalism and the dispersion of power. I mean, to do so is practically --- wait for it --- RAAAAACIST!!

RELATED: "Time for Some Small-Government Optimism … and to Repeal ObamaCare," and "In U.S., 46% Favor, 40% Oppose Repealing Healthcare Law" (via Memeorandum).