Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Post Reply

Topic: Dem Congresswoman Says Constitution 400 Years Old
Lpdon Joined Thu 02/25/10 Posts: 18772	Fri 03/14/14 11:41 AM Edited by Lpdon on Fri 03/14/14 11:42 AM
The U.S. Constitution is old. But 400 years old? That's what Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, seemed to claim during a floor speech on Wednesday. While speaking in opposition to a Republican-backed proposal, she launched into a brief history lesson. She said she wanted to thank her GOP colleagues "for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not." The math was off by nearly 200 years. The Constitution was adopted in 1787. Four-hundred years ago was more around the time of Jamestown, the first permanent British settlement on this side of the pond. Jackson Lee was speaking Wednesday in opposition to a bill that would speed up congressional lawsuits against the president for failing to enforce federal laws. The GOP-led House approved it on a 233-181 vote. Jackson Lee argued it was "not constitutional." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/13/math-problem-rep-jackson-lee-claims-constitution-is-400-years-old/ First 57 states, now 400 year old Constitution.

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Fri 03/14/14 12:11 PM
The U.S. Constitution is old. But 400 years old? That's what Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, seemed to claim during a floor speech on Wednesday. While speaking in opposition to a Republican-backed proposal, she launched into a brief history lesson. She said she wanted to thank her GOP colleagues "for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not." The math was off by nearly 200 years. The Constitution was adopted in 1787. Four-hundred years ago was more around the time of Jamestown, the first permanent British settlement on this side of the pond. Jackson Lee was speaking Wednesday in opposition to a bill that would speed up congressional lawsuits against the president for failing to enforce federal laws. The GOP-led House approved it on a 233-181 vote. Jackson Lee argued it was "not constitutional." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/13/math-problem-rep-jackson-lee-claims-constitution-is-400-years-old/ First 57 states, now 400 year old Constitution. I've always said that DC reads from a different set of founding documents.... much like the King James, Catholic, Islamic or Mormon translations of the bible.... one for us, another for them

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Fri 03/14/14 12:15 PM
what do you expect from dimocrats? our king barry thinks there are 57 states... and been to them all...

inshape61n Joined Sat 03/15/14 Posts: 101	Sat 03/15/14 11:08 AM
I think that Jackson Lee might be 400 years old!!!!!

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 03/15/14 12:19 PM
she is a Rare Stupid! Well...in 1614 we took a little trip And we had a constitution when we got off of the ship We thougt that it was nifty and we thought it would be great If that constitution applied in all fifty-seven states http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/happy-400th-birthday-to-the-us-constitution-t13322.html

vanaheim Joined Sun 12/29/13 Posts: 531	Sat 03/15/14 04:52 PM
The foundation of the 'constitution is in the magna carta, which was the european common government of the 14th century. The governing system you're using, not the specific document itself, is actually 700 years old, only marginally more advanced than the arabs, and completely missed out on all the evolution of peerage and parliamentary representation. You're just using a really old mediaeval form of government barely any more evolved than the arabs. You don't get that, I know, but there you go.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 03/15/14 05:20 PM
The foundation of the 'constitution is in the magna carta, which was the european common government of the 14th century. The governing system you're using, not the specific document itself, is actually 700 years old, only marginally more advanced than the arabs, and completely missed out on all the evolution of peerage and parliamentary representation. You're just using a really old mediaeval form of government barely any more evolved than the arabs. You don't get that, I know, but there you go. Total BS, the US constitution does not have the Magna Carta as it's basis, in fact it is the anti-thesis of the Monarch or oligarchy form the Magna Carta represents. The foundation of the Magna Carta in the constitution is an amplification of the common law, which has it's basis in the bible and other religious books. The US constitution is a very original and unique document that was devised in 1787 by the combined knowledge of the founders as a means of avoiding the downfall of civilizations past. Their vision was a Republic, a true republic of the people, not that parliamentary democracy of the slave world they were trying to escape. So you can take some bimbo that marries her relatives and call her Queen and elect a bunch of representatives that by their very nature enslave the people that only has the rights granted by their Queens and parliaments and enjoy your slavery. Medieval, almost as medieval as canon law. and Arabs, they only have Kings, the bimbos don't matter except as sperm depositories, still same interfamily matter though. So your whole analysis is just pure crap and don't hold water.

TJN Joined Sun 12/02/07 Posts: 6745	Sat 03/15/14 07:23 PM
The foundation of the 'constitution is in the magna carta, which was the european common government of the 14th century. The governing system you're using, not the specific document itself, is actually 700 years old, only marginally more advanced than the arabs, and completely missed out on all the evolution of peerage and parliamentary representation. You're just using a really old mediaeval form of government barely any more evolved than the arabs. You don't get that, I know, but there you go. And that has what to do with a member of congress saying our constitution is 400 years old? One would think an elected official who took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution should know at the very least when it was adopted.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 03/15/14 09:14 PM
The foundation of the 'constitution is in the magna carta, which was the european common government of the 14th century. The governing system you're using, not the specific document itself, is actually 700 years old, only marginally more advanced than the arabs, and completely missed out on all the evolution of peerage and parliamentary representation. You're just using a really old mediaeval form of government barely any more evolved than the arabs. You don't get that, I know, but there you go. And that has what to do with a member of congress saying our constitution is 400 years old? One would think an elected official who took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution should know at the very least when it was adopted. Why, they're politicians and must pass it before they know what is in it.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sun 03/16/14 02:31 AM Edited by Conrad_73 on Sun 03/16/14 02:33 AM
The foundation of the 'constitution is in the magna carta, which was the european common government of the 14th century. The governing system you're using, not the specific document itself, is actually 700 years old, only marginally more advanced than the arabs, and completely missed out on all the evolution of peerage and parliamentary representation. You're just using a really old mediaeval form of government barely any more evolved than the arabs. You don't get that, I know, but there you go. There was an EU in them days? BTW,what is Australia using these days?