Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
acidhead

Congress woman,"Constitution is 400 yrs old"

37 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)




http://freebeacon.com/sheila-jackson-lee-thinks-the-constitution-is-400-years-old/


March 12, 2014 4:08 pm

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) declared the U.S. Constitution to be 400 years old Wednesday on the House floor, which would mean it was signed in 1614.

“Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, 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,” she said.

That would be seven years after Jamestown, Virginia became America’s first permanent English settlement.

Lee is off by only 173 years. It was adopted on Sep. 17, 1787. Edited by acidhead
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW...graduated from Yale and JD from Virginia Law, fricken shocker she made this dumbazz comment..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, she's certainly qualified to be in Congress with that kind of knowledge. As well as being allowed to interact with other humans. Geez.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very poorly constructed - and researched - speech. I would suggest the Representative knows the Constitution is not 400 years old, and did not intend to give the impression it is - but the tossed-salad that are her words have betrayed her.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that extra 173 years allowed us to pick up those other seven states.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i would give her benefit of the doubt, i also say "we have 33000 gun laws on books" it does not actually mean we have exactly 33000 gun laws, i just use that number to show that we have a lot, and so far i did not see anyone taking number 33000 literaly. may be she just wanted to make a point that it was long time ago. i would think she does know how old is teh consitution, or may be i'm just plain wrong and she's as dumb as a bell.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She'll most probably say what politicians always say when they gaff,"I misspoke".

...and quietly blame it on an intern. (fired)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing how most of the politicians don't use the constitution this doesn't surprise me lol

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This woman is just plain nuts. A few year ago while touring NASA as a congressional delagate. She was showen a globe of Mars. She asked all present if you could see where the astronouts planted the flag in 1969! Just plain dumb

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She'd give George Bush a run for the money with a blunder like that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we've given you your chance, and this is what you've produced as a Representative (and a Law Graduate).

Can we have our colony back now, please ? You clearly don't know how to drive it, and sooner or later you're going to have an accident and damage it :P

Warm regards,

Gardener, UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to speak in public on a regular basis, unless I was reading my notes all the time I'm pretty sure I would misspeak quite often. I'd get back to my office and the partisan hate mail would be circulating around the internet about how I didn't know even the simplest of facts. The damage control every politician has to go through. It's a simple thing for private people to beat up on public people privately.

I hoped she wasn't using "400 years old" as a reason to ignore the Constitution. She wasn't; so I'll give her a pass on this one. I think we view politicians as either geniuses or dunces but they're neither.

I have to believe this woman knows how old the Constitution is. But just because this time was a misspeak doesn't mean a million other examples of alleged misspeak are.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me that her meaning was something to the effect that Americans have existed 400 years and since they have had the constitution had done all right.

The politics of the reaction seemed to try to make her seem dumb. Maybe she is but I doubt it.

Still, the document is in need of a complete rewrite.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me that her meaning was something to the effect that Americans have existed 400 years and since they have had the constitution had done all right.

The politics of the reaction seemed to try to make her seem dumb. Maybe she is but I doubt it.

Still, the document is in need of a complete rewrite.

Id change a few things myself, but a complete rewrite? Id like to see the second amendment better reflect how the founders felt about the right to bear arms. If for nothing more then to shut people up. Aside from that, the first 10 found in the bill of rights, far as im concerned, are set in stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id change a few things myself, but a complete rewrite? Id like to see the second amendment better reflect how the founders felt about the right to bear arms. If for nothing more then to shut people up. Aside from that, the first 10 found in the bill of rights, far as im concerned, are set in stone.

Like textual exegetes of the Bible, the Supreme Court already peels back the layers of time and culture to interpret the Constitution. There is no definite formula by which we can discover "how the founders felt about" anything-- time, culture and change being determiners here.

I agree that the Bill of Rights should not be changed. But the phrase "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is as germane a part of the 2nd amendment as any other clause thereof. It's proper interpretation leads to 'fightin' words' too frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like textual exegetes of the Bible, the Supreme Court already peels back the layers of time and culture to interpret the Constitution. There is no definite formula by which we can discover "how the founders felt about" anything-- time, culture and change being determiners here.

I agree that the Bill of Rights should not be changed. But the phrase "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is as germane a part of the 2nd amendment as any other clause thereof. It's proper interpretation leads to 'fightin' words' too frequently.

My biggest peeve is that people think the 2nd amendment is what gives us the right to "keep and bear Arms". The 2nd does no such thing because we already have/had the right. The 2nd only affirms this right, just like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights affirm rights we already have/had. We do not get our rights from the government, we get them at birth. The government can not grant me any rights, only limit the ones I have.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me that her meaning was something to the effect that Americans have existed 400 years and since they have had the constitution had done all right.

The politics of the reaction seemed to try to make her seem dumb. Maybe she is but I doubt it.

Still, the document is in need of a complete rewrite.

That's what I thought too, she was saying we had been around for that long, but meant the constitution had helped us after that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we've given you your chance, and this is what you've produced as a Representative (and a Law Graduate).

Can we have our colony back now, please ? You clearly don't know how to drive it, and sooner or later you're going to have an accident and damage it :P

Warm regards,

Gardener, UK.

Hahaha! That's funny right there!! :)

Yes...you can have it back but you must take the politicians too!...

And Lil Wayne! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My biggest peeve is that people think the 2nd amendment is what gives us the right to "keep and bear Arms". The 2nd does no such thing because we already have/had the right. The 2nd only affirms this right, just like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights affirm rights we already have/had. We do not get our rights from the government, we get them at birth. The government can not grant me any rights, only limit the ones I have.

I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment..

the phrase "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," .... Is an overriding Reason given, Why

"the right of the people TO KEEP and bear ARMS will not be infringed. "

You can only "infringe" on an existing right.

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment..

the phrase "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," .... Is an overriding Reason given, Why

"the right of the people TO KEEP and bear ARMS will not be infringed. "

You can only "infringe" on an existing right.

The right to keep and bear arms, which cannot be infringed, exists within the limitations of a well-regulated militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) declared the U.S. Constitution to be 400 years old Wednesday on the House floor, which would mean it was signed in 1614.

WOW...graduated from Yale and JD from Virginia Law, fricken shocker she made this dumbazz comment..

It is not the first or last time Sheila says something incredibly stupid. It is not for no reason that she is picked on by every conservative Talk Radio and TV personality.

http://www.thepoliti...n_Lee/Scandals/

During a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee stated that Republicans were refusing to raise the debt ceiling because President Obama is Black.
In July of 2010, Sheila Jackson Lee spoke at an NAACP event and accused TEA Party members of being modern day members of the Klu Klux Klan.
In a speech on the floor of the US House, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee spoke about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and used the example of North and South Vietnam living side by side as an example of the peace that can be achieved by withdrawing our troops and allowing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to work out a solution.
On the floor of the US House, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee spoke about her opinion that Rush Limbaugh should not be allowed to be a partial owner of a football team because of his political beliefs.

I especially like the one where North and South Vietnam (Two separate nations apparently) are living peacefully together following the withdrawal of the US from the Vietnam War.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The right to keep and bear arms, which cannot be infringed, exists within the limitations of a well-regulated militia.

That's not exactly what it says? .. In those days virtually every household KEPT arms . (hunting,security,whatever) They had no right to do so until the 2nd amendment was written?

* it also says "the people" .. not militia members. Grandpa always had the right to KEEP his squirrel gun, as their were no laws prohibiting the KEEPING of arms.

Edited by lightly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me I live in Houston. Shelia Jackson Lee is the biggest clown that congress has to offer. She speaks about being a freed slave. She is outraged over everything. The case is that she is always factuly wrong. To further add insult to injury she treats her staff with contempt

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lightly--My point is that the constitutional verbiage assumes some degree of governmental regulation.

If there were no regulation, then our local gun shops could sell us fully-auto, hand grenades, mortars, rockets, tanks, nukes, etc.

We won't agree on this, if only because--like every other aspect of the US Constitution, it is open for interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.