The Constitution is now considered propaganda

Well, at least the public reading of it is, anyway.  I am simply amazed at the outrage from Democrats regarding the reading of the Constitution on the House floor.  I shouldn’t be surprised, given their apparent disdain for the document that governs our country, but I really never thought I would see the day when they would metaphorically spit on it.

[Jerrold] Nadler [D-NY] called the “ritualistic reading” on the floor “total nonsense” and “propaganda” intended to claim the document for Republicans. “You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it,” said Nadler, who argued that the Founders were not “demigods” and that the document’s need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was “highly imperfect.”

Jason Horowitz, New York Times

Highly imperfect?  I think the fact that the Founding Fathers provided a way for the people to make Amendments as necessary showed their foresight and actually makes the Constitution more perfect.  To belittle the “supreme law of the land” as somehow flawed exposes the Leftist agenda.

(Notice the NYT drops the term “Fathers” from the discussion – that would be sexist, non-progressive, and non-politically correct; which is precisely why I used the term.)

And exactly what does Nadler mean by calling the “ritualistic reading” of the Constitution to be “propaganda?”  How can you call the reading of the document that is foundational to our nation propaganda?