Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yes, the Constitution is binding [Ezra Klein idiot alert]
Washington Post ^ | December 30, 2010 | Ezra Klein

Posted on 12/30/2010 2:55:04 PM PST by ejdrapes

Yes, the Constitution is binding

By Ezra Klein

This morning, I gave a quick interview to MSNBC where I made, I thought, some fairly banal points on the GOP's plan to honor the Constitution by having it read aloud on the House floor. Asked if it was a gimmick, I replied that it was, because, well, it is. It's our founding document, not a spell that makes the traitors among us glow green. It's also, I noted, a completely nonbinding act: It doesn't impose a particular interpretation of the Constitution on legislators, and will have no practical impact on how they legislate.

The rather toxic implication of this proposal is that one side respects the Constitution and the other doesn't. That's bunk, of course: It’s arguments over how the Constitution should be understood, not arguments over whether it should be followed, that cleave American politics. The Constitution was written more than 223 years ago, and despite the confidence various people have in their interpretation of the text, smart scholars of good faith continue to disagree about it. And they tend to disagree about it in ways that support their political ideology. I rarely meet a gun-lover who laments the Second Amendment's clear limits on bearing firearms, or someone who believes in universal health care but thinks the proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause doesn't leave room for such a policy.

But my inbox suggests that my comments weren't taken that way: The initial interpretation was that I'd said the Constitution is too complicated to understand because it was written a long time ago, and then, as the day went on, that I'd said the document itself is nonbinding.

(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: binding; constitution; ezraklein; libturd; wapo; washcompost

1 posted on 12/30/2010 2:55:07 PM PST by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

2 posted on 12/30/2010 2:59:50 PM PST by mrmeyer ("When brute force is on the march, compromise is the red carpet." Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

The idea that the Constitution permits killing babies in the womb is so far out that it is inconceiveable. Yet, Supreme Court scholars says “killing babies is okay.”. And yet every state has laws saying “murder” is wrong. So how can this abortion be??


3 posted on 12/30/2010 3:01:05 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Ignorance you can fix, stupid not so much.


4 posted on 12/30/2010 3:04:57 PM PST by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

As he sees it, everyone misunderstood him. It’s your fault for not understanding his comment.

At any rate, what seemed very clear to me was that he deems reading the Constitution as a gimmick. You could see the disgust in his face. I disagree. I think that is something that should be done often.


5 posted on 12/30/2010 3:05:46 PM PST by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Here is one little lisping fag boy that if his liberal mother had had him aborted wouldn’t be missed.


6 posted on 12/30/2010 3:05:57 PM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages, in honor of Standing Wolf.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

I agree. And your post cracked me up.


7 posted on 12/30/2010 3:17:47 PM PST by BillyBonebrake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Simply reading the Constitution aloud (which 99% of them won’t listen to anyway) and then requiring them to state the constitutional authority in each bell Congress presents is not enough. They will simply wave a weak had at the “interstate commerce clause” or the “health and welfare clause”. Instead make the legislator give a written defense of the bill stating what the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution said about it.


8 posted on 12/30/2010 3:30:12 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
" I rarely meet a gun-lover who laments the Second Amendment's clear limits on bearing firearms..."

My guess is Mr. Klein has never actually met a "gun-lover" at all, hanging out as he does in Washington.

And the Bill of Rights is not a "Bill of Limits"...

9 posted on 12/30/2010 3:31:21 PM PST by Redbob (W.W.J.B.D.: "What Would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

It is an easy read. On purpose. The way things are going. Article 5 will soon be needed.


10 posted on 12/30/2010 3:37:22 PM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

You can tell he isn’t a politician, when he forgot to say “he was taken out of context”.....


11 posted on 12/30/2010 3:41:45 PM PST by radioone (Proud to be an enemy of Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

This idiot is not stuck on stupid, he IS stupid. And he “writes” for a major newspaper? I wonder what he thinks of the Bible written thousands of years ago? Never mind....
This guy is a disease that needs to be cured before it infects more of us.


12 posted on 12/30/2010 3:41:57 PM PST by Dapper 26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Behold our new ruling class. "I didn't mean the Constitution isn't binding. Yes, the Constitution is binding but nobody knows what it means." Breathtaking.

I doubt seriously if young Mr. Klein reads Free Republic, at least judging from this astonishing vortex of stupidity, but he might well profit from a glance at our own FReeper Book Club, wherein some of those old guys - golly gosh, well over a hundred years ago! - discuss at length what the Constitution means. There's an entry requirement, sadly - he'll have to read the Constitution first. I wish him luck.

13 posted on 12/30/2010 3:43:59 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Master Klein is a childish fool.


14 posted on 12/30/2010 3:53:50 PM PST by yellowhorse (6 good horses, 3 good women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

“...I thought, some fairly banal points on the GOP’s plan to honor the Constitution by having it read aloud on the House floor. Asked if it was a gimmick, I replied that it was, because, well, it is.”

The reading of the Constitution is a direct result of Americans believing that our “leaders” have lost touch. That isn’t even worth this guy’s consideration or comment.

He’s way too smart for me.


15 posted on 12/30/2010 3:54:17 PM PST by APatientMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Stupid Ezra ~ it makes YOU glow RED, not GREEN!

Guy must be colorblind or something.

16 posted on 12/30/2010 3:55:47 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
"The rather toxic implication of this proposal is that one side respects the Constitution and the other doesn't."

That's right, Ez. Ezra is like a parrot. He can say the words, but apparently he doesn't understand what they mean.

17 posted on 12/30/2010 4:08:39 PM PST by Savage Beast ("You can, in fact must, shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It just has to be the truth." J. Goldberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
Ezra is like a parrot. He can say the words, but apparently he doesn't understand what they mean.

In 1984, George Orwell referred to this as "duckspeak".

18 posted on 12/30/2010 4:10:53 PM PST by Publius (No taxation without respiration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dapper 26

I must disagree with all those who think the writer to be stuck on stupid. When a person reads a perfectly clear document in a fashion that is both bizarre and skewed to further their political aims I call it evil, not stupid.


19 posted on 12/30/2010 4:16:19 PM PST by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The problem with Roe v. Wade - any rationally-think attorney with a shred of honesty will admit - the entire basis for the Supreme Court’s opinion consisted of social engineering, and as the years go by, the legal system simply continues to “wink” at its “constitutional” foundations.

It is a legal travesty of a mockery of a sham, as they say...


20 posted on 12/30/2010 4:19:42 PM PST by seanrobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Ezra Klein is one of the key “journo-list” guys. Everything he says should be considered based on his membership in that very left wing group.


21 posted on 12/30/2010 4:29:24 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

WaPo Ezra Klein MSNBC video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPNe6-f4b-Y&;


22 posted on 12/30/2010 4:45:51 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
"The rather toxic implication of this proposal is that one side respects the Constitution and the other doesn't."
That's right, Ez. Ezra is like a parrot. He can say the words, but apparently he doesn't understand what they mean.
That implication certainly is "rather" toxic. But it is the direct implication not of this proposal in isolation but of the explicit words of people on "the other side" when they said that "You have to pass the bill in order to see what is in it" and "We can do anything we want."
Son, that is toxic. In November you got an indication of how toxic that can be to "the other side's" chances of winning election in any jurisdiction where a majority of the electorate actually thinks of themselves as free, responsible adults.

23 posted on 12/31/2010 1:45:25 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
What about: "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool!"

The scariest thing of all is that millions of people can't comprehend the danger we are in.

Don't watch the old Kevin McCarthy movie version of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It'll scare the wits out of you. And it takes place in California! I'm not convinced that it wasn't a documentary.

24 posted on 12/31/2010 6:55:57 AM PST by Savage Beast ("You can, in fact must, shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It just has to be the truth." J. Goldberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Ezra is like a parrot. He can say the words, but apparently he doesn't understand what they mean.

"In 1984, George Orwell referred to this as 'duckspeak'."

I missed that. Orwell's writings are so packed with predictions--it's no wonder that we can't take it all in.

George Orwell is emerging as a more powerful predictor of things to come than Jules Verne.

25 posted on 12/31/2010 7:50:30 AM PST by Savage Beast ("You can, in fact must, shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It just has to be the truth." J. Goldberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Inwoodian

I cannot disagree.


26 posted on 01/01/2011 12:30:32 PM PST by Dapper 26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson