Posted on 06/24/2011 9:00:05 AM PDT by EricTheRed_VocalMinority
To quote a certain president, “let me be perfectly clear”: Liberals hate the Constitution because it obstructs their ability to control and manipulate the populace. They only care about the Constitution when a liberal activist judge concocts completely new meanings out of it, such as “the separation of church and state” the “right to privacy (i.e., abortion) or the right for foreign illegal enemy combatants to get civil protections, habeas corpus rights, etc. Probably the only document liberals hate more than the Constitution is the Bible, but that’s another topic for another blog post.
The latest embarrassment comes from the editor (!) of Time magazine. With maddening disrespect, the July 4 issue of Time will feature the Constitution being put through a paper shredder and the question posited: Does the document still matter?
Jim Treacher at the Daily Caller reports:
You probably think that just because a bunch of dead white guys wrote down some boring words on a piece of parchment or whatever, way back in the olden times of powdered wigs and wooden teeth, that means we all have to follow those words. That’s why you’re too stupid to write for Time! TheDC’s Jeff Poor reports: “On Thursday on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks if the document still matters. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore. ‘Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think. People all the time are debating what’s constitutional and what’s unconstitutional. To me the Constitution is a guardrail. It’s for when we are going off the road and it gets us back on. It’s not a traffic cop that keeps us going down the center.’” Okay, so maybe Stengel doesn’t do much driving. Or thinking, for that matter. But you get his point: The rules only count when you don’t have to shred them to get what you want. Compounding the embarrassment for Stengel: He used to be the CEO of the National Constitution Center! Too bad he never got around to actually reading it.
This is blatant ignorance on display, even for an editor of a major magazine. The Constitution isn’t meant to police us. It isn’t even meant to be a guardrail for us. The genius of the Constitution is that it is essentially a traffic cop for the government, not for the people. Stengel ostensibly—like many liberals, including President Hope&Change—mixes this up. And they say Sarah Palin is stupid?
Treacher links to John Pitney, Jr. at NRO’s The Corner blog, who writes:
In a Time article on the Constitution, Richard Stengel writes: “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.”
Yes, it does. The Tenth Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, James Madison explained the original understanding of the document in Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
But don’t mention that to Richard Stengel and the liberal know-it-all’s at Time. The Tenth Amendment is pretty far in. Maybe the former CEO of the freaking National Constitution Center just never made it that far in.
Or, more likely, Stengel—again, like many liberals—simply wants to ignore the blatantly obvious. The Constitution does limit the power of the federal government and Stengel doesn’t like that. Like a good liberal, he wants the government to control your freedom of speech via unconstitutional “hate speech” laws, your freedom of religious expression by invoking the non-existent “separation of church and state,” your right to assemble via false documents about national security threats by “right-wing extremists,” your private property via excessive taxation and eminent domain abuses, your quality of life such as the EPA controlling the water level in your toilet, the type of lightbulbs you use, the type of car you drive, the health care you desire, your right to bear arms via unconstitutional gun control laws, etc.
Doug Powers of The Powers That Be blog adds:
The real answer to the question “does the Constitution still matter” is an unqualified “yes.” But don’t take my word for it. Here’s part of a conversation between Stengel and Howard Kurtz from December of 2010 concerning Time’s publication of Wikileaks documents:
KURTZ: But Rick, you say right here in your editor’s note in “TIME” magazine that these documents released by WikiLeaks “harm national security,” and that Assange meant to do so.
STENGEL: Right. I know. But there’s no way around that.
I mean, I believe that’s Assange’s intention. I believe on balance that they have been detrimental to the U.S. But our job is not to protect the U.S. in that sense. I mean, the First Amendment protects us in terms of releasing this information which does enlighten people about the way the U.S. conducts foreign policy.
If the Constitution did not limit the size and power of government the First Amendment would be moot. Would Stengel be satisfied if the federal government had claimed it had a right to edit parts of his Wikileaks story on the grounds that “the First Amendment matters, but not as much anymore”?
Of course the Constitution matters. Implying that it matters less in every area of life other than journalism is an ultimately self-defeating position, as the “free press” may someday discover thanks to “living Constitution” advocates.
It’s a bad idea to consider the Constitution to be a “guard rail” and then give the government the size and power to move it wherever they like (and probably subsequently brag about how many jobs it saved or created).
Exactly.
So when you don’t like the Constitution because it prevents the liberal know-it-alls to impose their godless agenda on society, what do you do? You question whether the whole damn thing is relevant anymore.
It’s bad enough when the run of the mill zhlub liberal does it. When it’s a prominent politician or the editor of a major national magazine, I weep for my country and fear for my children.
Surprising people still read TIMES.....unfrakinreal. =.=
The same Time magazine that made Hitler, man of the year.
Repeal Amendment XVI and we will be half-way back to a Constitutional Republic, as designed by the Framers.
But, the question really is: Does TIME magazine matter anymore? I think we all know the answer, and Stengel (that effeminate twit) is projecting. (And being effeminate is fine...as long as you're a woman).
These stories are the softening up pre-invasion bombardmend. This is a full on plan,,, and the BIGGEST goal of a second Obama term. This is his main advisor. Farreed is is the author of the book he is carrying in that famous photo, “the Post American World”.
More than anything,, they want to be 100% freed from having to pretend to live by the US Constitution. This is their main goal.
The liberals have now made it clear they are the enemies of the Constitution. There will be no mercy and no reprieve.
Amen and A M E N ! ! !
NO,, Time doesnt. But when the editor of Time and Newsweek launch the SAME philosophical attack. And it is designed to begin the dialogue of replacing the Comstitution with a new one. You BETTER take it seriously.
Remember that the Newsweek editor is Obama closest advisor. This is the start of a coordinated effort. They are moving first to make it acceptable to discuss.
Every move they make begins this way. Global warming,, Health care, US guns causing trouble in Mexico stories started about 3 years ago. A sudden flood.
This is the line that i think will end in open violence if crossed. And i believe they fully intend to cross it as soon as the right economic disaster hits.
Glenn Beck posits the question: “Can Man Rule Himself?”
If the left think that Man cannot rule himself, then how can they endorse Men ruling over other men?
This seems to be a paradox on the left.
If Man is not qualified to rule himself then isn’t man also equally unqualified to rule over others, be those men Kings, Dictators, or even Saints?
All the apparatus of government consists of men, but if the left is correct in their assertion that man cannot rule himself then should their goal be to minimize the sins of men ruling over other men?
Good point. Reminiscent of Madison in Federalist 51, who said:
“The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Rejection of the U.S. Constitution is one step from advocating overthrow of the U.S. government. Are the editors of these publications trying to overthrow our government or do they wish to cedede and establish a new nation separate from the U.S. which I love and which is guided by the U.S. Constitution?
When US News & World Report finally folded up they just started sending Time with no explanation and no refund. When we called to cancel they asked "why."
Answer: too liberal.
They don't see any paradox because they're "special". Their leftism IS their virtue; it is their qualification to rule over us knuckle-walking bitter clingers.
If the left think that Man cannot rule himself, then how can they endorse Men ruling over other men?
This question nevers occurs to them and has no relevance for them. It is a question of power. The acquisition and retention of power over others. And for the worst of them, it's the power to harm others without consequence that they seek. They are monsters - killers without conscience.
No. It certainly won't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.