Reading the Constitution was a worthwhile stunt

Considering Washington’s modus operandi anything that happens in the District warrants a grain of salt. In the last ten years Republicans spent money and expanded federal power in ways that would’ve made previous Democrat leaders green with envy. Their profligacy allowed Democrats to paint the GOP as a party of big spenders, helping Democrats to victory in ‘06 and ‘08.

However, the spendthrift methods the GOP had employed apparently didn’t sit well with the Democrats. Upon regaining government’s reigns they set out to prove that Republicans remained, by comparison, the party of limited government and fiscal sanity. Thus neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are as good as their rhetoric, making cynicism a proper response to Washington theatrics.

With both parties growing government and its related red ink, it’s perfectly normal to dismiss the House’s reading of the U.S. Constitution as a publicity stunt. Were Republicans simply catering to budget hawks and Tea Party activists while Democrats were trying to prove that they realize the Constitution exists? Both accounts are likely. But if the Constitution’s vocalization was a self-serving political stunt, it was a worthwhile stunt. Let’s look at three reasons why.

Foremost, the Regressive Left’s outright contempt for the supreme doctrine of American government was prominently displayed. Liberal-leaning media commentators referred to supporters of our founding document as possessing a fetish. Sure, some Democrats participated in the reading. But some found nits to pick or other things to do. And really, there’s little wonder that leftists aren’t enthused about reading the Constitution.

The Constitution, as written, limit’s the central government’s authority, clearly defining the areas where Congress can exercise its due influence and where it cannot. Regressives think big government is good and bigger government is better, thus ignoring the Constitution makes perfect sense for them. Conversely, conservatives believe that the government governs best when it governs least. If that makes for a Constitution fetish then label me a pervert and we’ll continue.

Another reason to applaud the Constitution’s reading is because it forced ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (yes, everyone realizes she’s the ex-Speaker, but I love using the phrase) to acknowledge the document. Last year, following the healthcare debate, a reporter asked then-Speaker Pelosi what part of the Constitution authorized Congress to provide or require healthcare coverage. She became incredulous. However, the reporter’s question was serious and reflected the views of many Americans. Pelosi learned that lesson last November.

Granted, reading even a small segment of the Constitution is to Pelosi what holy water is to Count Dracula. And merely reading the words will do nothing to reshape her collectivist mind. But at least she’s been forced to publicly recognize the document before her next premeditated subversion.

A third reason this stunt makes sense it because it reminds Congress that it’s a representative body and not the U.S. House of Sovereign Lords. These 435 men and women take an oath to abide by the Constitution. They make no vow to circumvent the amendment process or to ignore the document when it proves inconvenient. Isn’t it then sensible that representatives pay homage to the principles they swear to uphold? A representative Congress does not rule arbitrarily. A representative Congress cannot enact just law while exceeding its granted authority. Again, there’s no guarantee of compliance. But due deference was offered, which is at least a starting point.

Among the first acts of the 112th Congress was to read the U.S. Constitution on the House floor for the first time in our nation’s history. Perhaps it was simply a stunt, albeit of some value, intended to placate a restless and concerned electorate. Or was it something more, a repentance for Congress’ errant past? We can hope the latter. But keep the cynicism handy and call it an act of eternal vigilance. That is, after all, freedom’s price.