When the 112th Congress convenes on January 6, 2011, new procedural rules authored by the GOP majority will be proposed and implemented. Amongst these will be a provision that calls for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House.

Democrats are often criticized for advocating policies that will result in what Republicans derisively call a “nanny” state. But it is the Republicans who most often treat their work as child’s play. They previously implemented the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to open each day’s business. Now they want to schedule a story hour wherein they will recite the Constitution. And it is not unworthy of notice that the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is a notorious crybaby.

This sort of behavior is generally reserved for kindergarten classes. The spectacle of grown men and women reciting in unison their obedience to a flag is downright embarrassing. And if they don’t already know what the Constitution says they probably should not have been elected in the first place. Certainly the reading will not elucidate it for them. In order to understand the Constitution it must be considered in its entirety, including amendments and a couple of hundred years of court rulings and interpretations. Would the GOP advocate reading the entire legal history of the Constitution into the record?

The Constitutional reading is paired with another new rule saying that…

“A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor submits for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.”

This is nothing but a symbolic bit of grandstanding that has no legal effect on any legislation. Only the Supreme Court can assess the constitutionality of any law. This rule requires only that a bill’s sponsor make a statement citing a constitutional provision. It does not, and can not, require that the provision actually be relevant or binding. So a member could cite the “Preamble” or the “Oath or Affirmation Clause” or the third comma in the second paragraph of Article VI. It literally doesn’t matter. Once the statement is furnished the bill can proceed and no other member can challenge it. Even if a challenge was permissible under the rule, who or what would have jurisdiction to decide whether the statement was “specific” enough without stepping on the toes of the Supreme Court? Perhaps the GOP should be required to make a statement citing the Constitutional power to enact this rule.

What’s next for the GOP? Would they like to codify “Nap Time” or “Shoe Lacing” instruction? Would they like to prohibit name-calling or running with scissors? Perhaps they could enact a rule that would result in a member being grounded for sassing the chair. If the new rules being proposed by the GOP are any indication, Congress is in for a era of strict parental supervision. And that may be the way conservatives like it, but most Americans would probably prefer that their representatives behave more like adults.

Too many Americans are embroiled in a reality show that could be called “Survivor: United States.” And the Republicans want to vote the adults off the island. Especially in these times, when so many people are undergoing severe hardships, there is a need for government to concentrate on solving problems rather than stacking blocks and coloring inside the lines. Grow up, Republicans.

[Addendum] A new report just revealed the hypocrisy of the “fiscally conscious” GOP: Republicans to Spend $1.1 Million Reciting Constitution on House Floor.