Alana Goodman doesn't get why I wanted the whole Constitution read:
Serwer is seriously reaching here. The reason Congress read the Constitution wasn't to perform an academic historical exercise. The left may not understand this, but the Constitution is actually still used on a daily basis to uphold our nation's laws.
Moreover, I just don't see the comparison. Huckleberry Finn is a classic piece of literature that can't be edited with a vote. On the other hand, the Constitution is a governing document that has and can be changed. Instead of focusing on the ugly, superseded portions of the document, lawmakers would do better to concentrate on upholding the parts that are still binding today.
I assume most elected members of Congress have read the Constitution and understand which parts are legally binding and which aren't, and so the reading of the Constitution was a symbolic gesture meant to remind members of the importance of the oath they take. In that case, reading the entire Constitution, including the superseded text, is a potent reminder of our past mistakes as a nation. As Ezra Klein noted yesterday, there's a reason why we amend, rather then edit, the Constitution. As a result of the omissions, it's not even accurate to say that what lawmakers read yesterday was the Constitution.
Goodman seems to be suggesting here that members of Congress actually needed a quick study session, lest lawmakers get confused and wander into the chamber thinking that the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" is illegal and senators are elected by state legislatures. It seems more likely that Republicans wanted to avoid reading the awkward bits, but maybe Goodman thinks the new Congress is made up of complete imbeciles.
