The thrust of E.J Dionne's point is right, though I have a small quibble:
But on reflection, I offer the Republicans two cheers for their fealty to their professed ideals. We badly need a full-scale debate over what the Constitution is, means and allows - and how Americans have argued about these questions since the beginning of the republic. This provision should be the springboard for a discussion all of us should join. [...]
An examination of the Constitution that views it as something other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the country.
Of course, historical criticism reveals that the books of Genesis and Leviticus, like the Constitution, are messy works, written and compiled by a variety of people, with different ideas and competing conceptions of the right and good. This doesn't make them any less sacred, only human.
So, to amend Dionne a little, what we want is an examination of the Constitution with an eye toward the human, and an appreciation of the fact that it is a political document written by men, not demigods, with the attendant flaws, quirks and compromises. Relatedly, if the GOP plans to read the Constitution aloud on the House floor, I wonder how members will react to this passage:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
For folks who view the Constitution as flawless, this has to be a little jarring. Though, given this new class of Republicans, I wouldn't be shocked if some wacko member of the GOP caucus ran with it, and attacked Obama for being three fifths of a person.
-- Jamelle Bouie
