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 ...
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??
Ignorance you can fix, stupid not so much.
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.
Here is one little lisping fag boy that if his liberal mother had had him aborted wouldn’t be missed.
I agree. And your post cracked me up.
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.
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"...
It is an easy read. On purpose. The way things are going. Article 5 will soon be needed.
You can tell he isn’t a politician, when he forgot to say “he was taken out of context”.....
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.
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.
Master Klein is a childish fool.
“...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.
Guy must be colorblind or something.
That's right, Ez. 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 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.
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...
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.