Michael Chamberlain at OpEdNews says:
This reading of the Constitution, into the Congressional Record, is smoke and mirrors, nothing more.
Here's what Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, should do after the reading concludes. Make a request to clarify the reading of the Constitution, with the reading of the following documents: From the Federalist Papers, Federalist #33, by Alexander Hamilton, and Federalist #39, by James Madison. Those, will get their heads spinning with NATIONAL supremacy. Also, from the Founders' Constitution: James Madison's letter to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 27, 1823; James Madison's letter to Edmund Pendleton, dated October 28, 1787; and James Madison's, Notes on Nullification written between 1835 and 1836.
Chamberlain then goes on to explain that it's "anti-Constitutional" to repeal Obamacare and cites a Georgetown law professor as his source.
From the blog Say it Ain't So Already:
This sounds like a way to waste a whole bunch of time and to feed video of supposedly uber-patriotic Republicans to the media.
Obama himself suggests that Republicans are simply "playing to their base" and says:
“My expectation, my hope is that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will realize that there will be plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012,”
Spoken like a true campaigner. Obama has never quit campaigning for 2012.
Norah O'Donnell says it's just a gimmick:
O'Donnell condescendingly introduced the segment by suggesting that the Constitution "has been getting a whole lot of lip service." After alerting viewers that the Republicans would open Congress by reading the document's text, she skeptically wondered, "Is this a gimmick?"
Ezra Klein says yes, indeed, it's a gimmick and besides, that old document is so confusing anyway...
Yes, it's a gimmick. [Laughs] I mean, you can say two things about it. One, is that it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don't read the text and think they're following. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done. So, I wouldn't expect to much coming out of this.
The Delaware Liberal is in the "it's a stunt" camp:
The new Republican House has already decided that it’s first stunt is to read the Constitution out loud. The Republicans want to convince us that they are the one, true party of the Constitution.Over at Politicus USA this is all somehow Michelle Bachmann's doing:
Bachmann thinks the November 2nd election was a mandate for Congress to return to the Founders’ idea of America and says, “Voters called for a renewed commitment to the Constitution,” and that, “These new rules show that Republicans are serious about respecting the Constitution.” Bachmann’s comprehension of the Constitution is tenuous at best, and her remarks this past summer that she wanted Minnesotan’s to be “armed and dangerous” in case the Federal government enforced federal laws were nothing short of treason and incitement to armed insurrection.
And ShowMeBlog offers this:
My God… The new and I guess old Republicans do not know what the Constitution of the United States contains! Not only that it looks like the new Republicans coming into the House must be so stupid that they can read it. They have to have it read to them. I do not think the new Republican members of Congress should be sworn in as members of Congress. How can they take the oath when they do not know what they are saying they will protect and defend?
It's difficult for me to believe anyone could object to Boehner's reading of the Constitution. It's never been done before and I think it's high time. But to many liberals it's like garlic to a vampire and almost more than they can stand. That's a shame.