WashPo's Ezra Klein Says We Can't Understand The Constitution- Written Too Long Ago

Here's The Right Side Of It ^ | December 30, 2010 | John L. Work

[JLWORK]

Via Michelle Malkin:

Here’s a good piece by Doug Powers, commenting on the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein’s belief that the Constitution isn’t understandable because it was written over one hundred years ago. You’ve got to see this video, if you haven’t already:

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/30/constitution/

Where do these journalistic jamokes like Klein come from, anyway? Who hires them? Who needs them? I can read – even the English that was written a few centuries ago – really. But here’s what Ezra says on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown regarding the Republicans’ intention to read the entire Constitution aloud after the new Congress is sworn in:

Q: “…Is this a gimmick??

A: “Yes, it’s a gimmick. I mean, (laughs), you can say two things about it. One is it has no binding power on anything, and then, 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 a hundred 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 have expect too much coming out of this.”

Hey, Ezra. Listen to me, man. I’ve read the darned thing a few times, myself. I don’t have any trouble understanding it. The language is as clear and precise as it can be. In fact, Ezra, I think that the clarity is a work of beauty and genius.

So, what’s wrong with Ezra? What is it he thinks that we regular working schmucks can’t understand in the Constitution?

As Powers points out, the entire document is – what- six pages in length? When was the last time in history a Republic like this one was constructed on a six–page blueprint?

Maybe Ezra is related to some higher-up at the Post or at MSNBC. Tell you what. I don’t know how he got his job, or how he keeps it with stupidity like this. I wouldn’t hire this guy to flip burgers. I don’t think he’s qualified.

[bannie]

Maybe you can’t understand it, little man; but WE sure can.

[americanophile]

"it has no binding power on anything"

Breathaking ignorance or totalitarian arrogance, take your pick.

[dr_lew]

I can’t help but think of the small fiasco of Obama’s swearing in, which was all Roberts’ fault, BTW, but no matter. Maybe it was some kind of omen. It is curious that they thought it prudent to adhere so punctiliously to the letter of the Constitution on this particular point.

[OneWingedShark]

I pick “All of the above.”

[americanophile]

Indeed.

[Domandred]

One is it has no binding power on anything

Um excuse me what?!?!?!

[andyk]

If you listen to him, it's pretty clear (to me at least), that he is saying that the reading of the constitution is not binding on anything, which is correct. However, I do understand the allure of thinking the absolute worst of this douche.

Furthermore, this douche is also correct in saying that no one can understand the thing. The constitution that I read doesn't come close to authorizing the government that we currently have. It's over. There's no going back; it will only get worse. Incrementalism wins.

[Ackackadack]

"One is it has no binding power on anything"

Um excuse me what?!?!?!

He must have missed the "supreme law of the land" part.

[Lazlo in PA]

With intellectual pundits like Ezra on the "Bend Over" news channel, it will be no time before they offer these dudes a prime time political round table show.

[pepsionice]

I think when he said it had no binding power...he was referring to the upcoming house period and how the reading would have no effect.

To some degree, that is correct. The guys will meet and still pass legislation that does not meet Constitutional requirements. Both parties will do it, and we will simply look on as it being ‘entertainment’ and nothing better.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You need the Benjamin Franklin spectacles, from National Treasure, to be able to read historic documents like the Constitution. There's too much secret writing for ordinary eyes. Apparently, copies of these spectacles are issued to all Supreme Court Justices -- so that they can read all the secret stuff, that ordinary folk can't see.

[TigersEye]

Occam’s Razor says the problem lies with you, Ezra. You’re just stupid.

[opentalk]

Is this the guy that started journolist? If so he has no credibility.

[Rocky]

Is this the guy that started journolist?

Unless there are two Ezra Kleins, he is indeed the one who started JList. No conservatives need apply.

[opentalk]

He has an ethics problem, interesting Washington post gives him a platform. He is irrelevant.

[PIF]

The original Constitution (the bill of rights) and the first 10 amendments are only 2 folio pages -— the subsequent amendments add the additional pages.

But that's the problem... it is just not long enough. A proper Constitution we could all understand should be at least 2000 pages with plenty of “Whereas”es and “At the Secretary’s Discretion” clauses to fully clarify matters.

The recently passed Health Care Bill is a good example of the format a truly modern, understandable Constitution should take, dontcha think Mr. Klein?

[Former Proud Canadian]

You, sir, are absolutely correct. The US Constitution is amazing in its simplicity and brevity. It was written so that it could be easily understood by everyone. Except, it seems, liberals.

[ZULU]

I guess this thinking should apply to leases and contracts too.

What an idiot. But the problem here is that this kind of crap is actually being taught in schools and kids today will grow up believing it.

[Travis McGee]

But we are expected to obey every obtuse, legalistic line in multi-thousand-page horrors like Obamacare, that our “leaders” never bothered to read before making law.