Posted on 12/30/2010 2:55:04 PM PST by ejdrapes
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: Its 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.Yes, the Constitution is binding
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
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.
That's right, Ez. Ezra is like a parrot. He can say the words, but apparently he doesn't understand what they mean."The rather toxic implication of this proposal is that one side respects the Constitution and the other doesn't."
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.
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.
"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.
I cannot disagree.
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.