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

Skip to comments.

Ezra Klein: Honest lefty
dailymail.com ^ | 31 December, 2010 | Don Surber

Posted on 01/01/2011 6:27:02 AM PST by marktwain

1. Blogger Ezra Klein went on MSNBC and said the Constitution is a hundred years old and hard to understand.

Apparently, this drew flak.

2. Then he blogged at 11:55 AM on Thursday: “…My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it. The Second Amendment, for instance, says nothing about keeping a gun in the home if you’ve not signed up with a ‘well-regulated militia,’ but interpreting the Second Amendment broadly has been important to those who want to bear arms. And so they’ve done it…”

Apparently, this drew flak.

3. Then he blogged at 3:57 PM on Thursday: “…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…”

Then I assume, he went to his favorite bar, got loaded and told old war stories. But he did go from the Constitution being written in 1910, to 1810, to 1787 in a few hours so he learned something on Thursday.

Iowahawk had a wonderful send-up: The Constitution is very important.

Ezra Klein made the biggest mistake that can be made by a liberal — progressive — socialist — communist — no labelist — whatever the heck they call themselves on the 31st of the month.

He was being honest.

He does not believe in the Constitution.

He is cynical about it and he projects that same cynicism onto those who disagree with him.

That shocked the left’s system. Being honest does that to them. They use euphemisms to hide their true beliefs. The reason, for example, that they see “illegal immigrant” as racist is that they cannot imagine anyone other than a Mexican as being an illegal immigrant. They use “undocumented worker” because they want to promote poor Jose coming here to make a grub stake. They do not see the criminals or the relatives from Ireland or the Asian student who overstayed a visa. It’s always this stereotype.

But I stray. Ezra Klein’s first post-MSNBC interview post was telling and headlined: “What the tea party wants from the Constitution.”

He projected what he wants from the Constitution on to the Tea Party. Sure. The Left sees the Tea Party in their own image. That’s why the Left at first called the Tea Party Astroturf because the Left creates all these fake groups. Look at how it tried to counter the Tea Party movement later with the Coffee Party and the like.

And so it goes with the Constitution. For 8 years, the Left’s railed against Bush shredding the Constitution, a phrase which came to mean nothing. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the Left cried shredding the Constitution once too often.

When the Tea Party cites the Constitution, Ezra Klein projects onto them his own disdain for the document, as he wrote in his 11:55 AM post:

My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it. The Second Amendment, for instance, says nothing about keeping a gun in the home if you’ve not signed up with a “well-regulated militia,” but interpreting the Second Amendment broadly has been important to those who want to bear arms. And so they’ve done it.

That’s their right, of course. Liberals pick and choose their moments of textual fidelity as well. But as the seemingly endless series of 5-4 splits on the Supreme Court shows, even the country’s most experienced and decorated constitutional authorities routinely disagree, and sharply, over what the text means when applied to today’s problems. To presume that people writing what they think the Constitution means — or, in some cases, want to think it means — at the bottom of every bill will change how they legislate doesn’t demonstrate a reverence for the document. It demonstrates a disengagement with it as anything more than a symbol of what you and your ideological allies believe.

In reality, the tea party — like most everyone else — is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution. When the constitutional disclaimers at the bottom of bills suit them, they’ll respect them. When they don’t — as we’ve seen in the case of the individual mandate — they won’t.

What a telling statement in that last paragraph is.

What Ezra Klein means by “most everyone else” is Ezra Klein.

And so the sentence means that Ezra Klein is not interested in living by the Constitution but rather, Ezra Klein wants to decide what the Constitution means.

That is his point of view.

Such a belief would explain why the Left was so upset about Gitmo — shredding the Constitution — under Bush but now could not care less about Gitmo.

But his honesty meant that four hours later, he had to write a post: “Yes, the Constitution is binding.”

The nut paragraph: “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. I went back and watched the clip — or at least the part someone clipped and sent me, which is above — and thought I was clear enough. But when a lot of people misunderstand you at once, the fault is usually yours. So if I was unclear: Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment. And no, reading the document on the floor of the House will not make the country more like you want it to be, unless your problem with the country is that you thought the Constitution should be read aloud on the floor of the House more frequently. In which case, well, you’re in luck!”

Still cynical. The Constitution is meaningless to him. Oh it is binding but fluid.

Well, when you are taught — as Al Gore said it — that “the Constitution is a living and breathing document” you really miss the entire point of having a Constitution.

So I do not condemn Ezra Klein. I praise him for telling the truth about his feelings toward the Constitution. To him, limited government and personal liberty are all open to interpretation, which means they do not exist unless a court says they do.

Me? The Constitution means what it says. I even like the Third Amendment.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: constitution; ezraklein; government; philosophy
I believe that Ezra Klein's honesty was an unintentional mistake. The problem, as Don Surber showed, was that he projected his belief system onto everyone else. He thought everyone else had no honor and was as desirous of forcing their policies on everyone as he is.

The very concepts of honor, limited government, individual freedom, and mutual respect seem quite alien to him.

1 posted on 01/01/2011 6:27:06 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

LOL.


Ezra Klein (and his newbie troll here) In The Cross-Hairs Of ZOT!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2650045/posts


2 posted on 01/01/2011 6:28:57 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (Whether corruption is in politics, science, education, research, etc., always follow the money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"...Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems"

This displays the core conceit of Liberalism, which is that it is the Government's role to solve every problem. The truth is, the people solve the problems themselves.

3 posted on 01/01/2011 6:33:02 AM PST by Haiku Guy (What we've got here is ... failure to communicate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Makes me wonder what a “constitution as written by a liberal” would look like.


4 posted on 01/01/2011 6:33:14 AM PST by MaryFromMichigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Honestly Stuck On Stupid Leftist Butt-Munch” is more accurate.


5 posted on 01/01/2011 6:34:58 AM PST by Howie66 (I can see November (2012) from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Must me that’s why it was published in the ‘paper of record’ in the FAILED EMPIRE.


6 posted on 01/01/2011 6:36:04 AM PST by snarkbait (<<For Rent>>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaryFromMichigan

“Makes me wonder what a “constitution as written by a liberal” would look like.”

I seem to remember some half-hearted humor on this - written by those who tried to suppress their intelligence and write like a lefty.

It was not a pretty sight.

And if ever implemented, would most definitely be the cause of Civil War II.


7 posted on 01/01/2011 6:37:03 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Haiku Guy

Our Constitution, whatever its perceived flaws, is far better than the constitution of Great Britain. It has NONE.

There are no constitutional restraints on the raw power of the English government. NONE. Hence the arrival of the welfare state and socialized medicine in England. Hence the decline and fall of the secular and drunken British state.


8 posted on 01/01/2011 6:40:55 AM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Someone should ask the guy why he thinks the words “WE THE PEOPLE” is written so large on that mouldy old document.


9 posted on 01/01/2011 6:42:40 AM PST by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaryFromMichigan

***Makes me wonder what a “constitution as written by a liberal” would look like.***

Google the ‘constitution’ of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to find the asnwer to your question.

Or ash the President, First Lady, Cass Sunstein, ad nauseam.


10 posted on 01/01/2011 6:42:48 AM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MaryFromMichigan

It’s intersting that the left cannot ensconce itself as a governing entity without lies, deceit and murder. Then, when it achieves power it cannot maintain that power without force (including minimizing the population’s gun ownership) and more lies, deceit and murder.

Yet, the Marxists see themselves as the most enlightened people on earth.


11 posted on 01/01/2011 6:43:46 AM PST by dools0007world
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The Second Amendment, for instance, says nothing about keeping a gun in the home if you’ve not signed up with a ‘well-regulated militia

"Signed up"? That's like saying you can't eat unless you're signed up as a member of the human race. Surber does not know what he's talking about here.

A "well-regulated militia" implies two things: 1) every armed male citizen of age is automatically considered part of the militia; and "well regulated" means well-disciplined, or skilled. If the people can't keep and bear arms for themselves, and thus become competent in using them, how will they be expected to come together as the militia and defend their town, state, or country? Liberals who think the militia is something you "sign up for" are just stupid.

Surber falls into two failed and faulty mindsets in this piece: "only government can fix problems" and "words in the Constitution mean what the Progressives have defined them to mean in the last 100 years."

12 posted on 01/01/2011 6:43:50 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Imagine Cass Sunstein's boot stamping on Lincoln's beard, forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

“I believe that Ezra Klein’s honesty was an unintentional mistake.”

Yep. When you spend a good part of your life lying about your ideology, slip ups will happen.


13 posted on 01/01/2011 6:44:03 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz ( Happy Freeping New Year)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Ezra is one of those folks who sees no need whatsoever for the Constitution until somebody puts a firearm upside his head and tells him it's all over. Then he cries and bleets and wants his mommy.

He imagines law and order is some sort of magical field effect ~ not just an agreement among all of us.

Frankly, I'm getting quite tired of Leftwingtard magical thinking.

14 posted on 01/01/2011 6:49:05 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer; All

Sorry, All, I guess I’m still waking up... I mistook Surber’s quotes of Klein for Surber’s own words. What I said about Surber applies to the Journolister himself, not Surber.


15 posted on 01/01/2011 6:54:17 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Imagine Cass Sunstein's boot stamping on Lincoln's beard, forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Great summation of the mind of a Progressive/Socialist/Marxist/ whatever they call themselves on the 28th of each month.


16 posted on 01/01/2011 6:55:26 AM PST by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I’ll bet the little metrosexual turd-fondler could dazzle both of his readers with a learned article about gay sex education for 5 year olds and the benefits of multiple abortions. Ah,,, the fruits of higher education.


17 posted on 01/01/2011 6:57:50 AM PST by mapmaker77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

It was nice that he did it while were all for a few days, so we had a minute to contemplate the liberal mind, and what it thinks about our founding documents and if they had their way, where we would be in 5 minutes if they got total control.

These are the ramblings of a fool, but they are the thinking of the socialist.

Their BS about settled law has killed millions, and that same BS will soon be heard about health care


18 posted on 01/01/2011 7:01:30 AM PST by reefdiver ("Let His day's be few And another takes His office")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
he problem, as Don Surber showed, was that he projected his belief system onto everyone else. He thought everyone else had no honor and was as desirous of forcing their policies on everyone as he is. The very concepts of honor, limited government, individual freedom, and mutual respect seem quite alien to him.

I'd really like to think you intended to write such an thoroughly ironic comment....

19 posted on 01/01/2011 7:03:28 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
...written 200 years ago when American had 13 states and

one republic

Some people can oversimplify anything.

20 posted on 01/01/2011 7:04:09 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

We don’t need liberals telling us what the Constitution says, or should say. The more important question is, where are the liberals and the Left leading us?


21 posted on 01/01/2011 7:06:21 AM PST by popdonnelly (Class warfare is Obama's thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

The only way that the Second Amendment can be difficult to interpret or understand is if the reader absolutely insists upon grotesquely placing the subordinate clause in a predominant position. Even then, nowhere does the PRE-EXISTENCE of “a well regulated militia” appear as a qualifying condition upon which the public’s right “to keep and bear arms” must depend. End of story. Case closed.
Only the most unscrupulous agenda-driven sophists would even attempt any contrary interpretation. Unfortunately, quite a lot of such creatures circulate among us.


22 posted on 01/01/2011 7:06:28 AM PST by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MaryFromMichigan
Makes me wonder what a “constitution as written by a liberal” would look like.

Their 'Bill of Rights' would grant the government spectacular powers to intrude into and regulate the lives of ordinary citizens. It would've codified Government as Parent.

The unwritten subtext of the whole of the Revolution would've been 'We're breaking away from the mother country, because we're not nearly oppressed enough by it; we'll do a much better job of oppressing ourselves'.

23 posted on 01/01/2011 7:12:31 AM PST by Riley (The Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Senator John Blutarski
Even then, nowhere does the PRE-EXISTENCE of “a well regulated militia” appear as a qualifying condition upon which the public’s right “to keep and bear arms” must depend.

Hasn't it already been well-established that the militia is referring to the people itself, not to a creature of the state such as a state or federal military organization?
24 posted on 01/01/2011 7:13:23 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
... but the Constitution is not a clear document.

Stopped reading right there. Perhaps the author of this piece should have his God-given first amendment rights to freedom of the press "interpreted" the same way he would want to "interpret" away our second amendment rights.

25 posted on 01/01/2011 7:13:36 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Does Erza Klein fully understand ObamaCare, a 2,000+ page document? Just wondering.... =.=


26 posted on 01/01/2011 7:14:20 AM PST by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaryFromMichigan

Look at Alexander Hamilton’s proposed constitution. For him the States were mere historical accidents,like English counties. The Anti-federalists discerned that many other men thought like Hamilton, mostly city men, whose model of good government was monarchy, or a disguised republic like Great Britain. Not all the Tories fled to Upper Canada.


27 posted on 01/01/2011 7:15:54 AM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Translation:
It doesn’t say what I want it to say, so we just need to scrap that old, useless, outdated document and come up with a grand, new, glorious one which requires everyone to be subjected to the elitists who are so much smarter and care so much more.


28 posted on 01/01/2011 7:16:23 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

This guy would gladly work with a Goebbels to feather his nest.


29 posted on 01/01/2011 7:17:12 AM PST by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
There are no constitutional restraints on the raw power of the English government. NONE. Hence the arrival of the welfare state and socialized medicine in England. Hence the decline and fall of the secular and drunken British state.

Unfortunately we no longer have any constitutional restraints on the power of the US government either. The welfare state has been growing by leaps and bounds here for at least 70 years now. There are just too many people who demand that the government take care of them, and too many of them are cheerfully willing to give up all of their rights if it means getting such care.

30 posted on 01/01/2011 7:17:28 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Haiku Guy
The "we had different problems so long ago" line is a canard, and an easily-defeated one at that. Simply go line-by-line through the Bill of Rights, and ask which of those issues has now changed...

Should we allow the government to now dictate Religion, by establishing or outlawing certain faiths?
Maybe let them now deny Free Speech?
Deny the Right to Assemble or Petition?
How about allowing random Search and Seizure?
Deny Due Process? Also Double Jeopardy?
Force Self-Incrimination?
Deny Eminent Domain (one of the liberals' favorite new moves)?
Deny Jury Trials, Public Trials, and Speedy Trials?
Deny the Right to Counsel?
Allow Excessive Bail and Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
House troops in our homes?

Come on, Progressive Folk! Tell us which of those out-dated concepts you need removed from that sad, useless, inapplicable old document!!!

31 posted on 01/01/2011 7:23:20 AM PST by Teacher317 (really?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

It has been clearly established in numerous papers and articles, but only for one side of the argument. Those who are for the RKBA understand it. Those who are against it, parse the words like a skilled attorney, and demonstrate just as clearly to their base that it does not. Just like any 5-4 decision by SCOTUS, it depends on your foundational beliefs. Truth, logic, and reason can usually be swung either way.


32 posted on 01/01/2011 7:28:16 AM PST by Teacher317 (really?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Haiku Guy

Well I agree with him ,Is He a journalist? I dont believe in Freedom of the Press anymore they should all be arrested and executed


33 posted on 01/01/2011 7:32:06 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Senator John Blutarski

Our Constitution did not arise out of nothing. The 2nd Amendment has quite obvious precedent in the English Bill of Rights that was a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”

This idea was carried over into the 2nd, with of course the religious and class aspects removed, as these were not relevant in America.

IOW, the 2nd was expanding a previously recognized right of Englishmen from upper-class Protestants to the entire People.


34 posted on 01/01/2011 7:34:33 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

In (partial) defense of Hamilton, there is good reason to believe his preference for a stronger executive grew out of a sincere belief that something close to an elective monarchy was necessary if a Republic was not to descend into chaos and fall apart.

Events in France a few years later showed that his concerns were not entirely unfounded.

He turned out to be wrong, but that is no reason to assume his proposals were based solely or even mostly on a lust for personal power.


35 posted on 01/01/2011 7:39:49 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

At least we have something, as old and “unreadable” as it may be


36 posted on 01/01/2011 7:50:53 AM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Ezra Klein = God’s gift to right wingers

Erza, dear, it is not a news flash that liberals don’t care about the constitution or the rule of law.

Roe vs Wade ring a bell?


37 posted on 01/01/2011 7:57:57 AM PST by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Events in France......

The French Revolution was a temporary descent into chaos and mass murder.. But it was preceded by the centralized administrative state set up by Louis XIV to weaken local autonomy, and was followed by an even more centralized national state under Napoleon and his successors.

That said, in my opinion Hamilton’s desire for a strong federal government probably was more about correcting the excessive looseness of the Articles of Confederation than about what he saw unfolding in France (BTW in any future Anlgo-French conflict, Hamilton favored strict neutrality).


38 posted on 01/01/2011 8:11:39 AM PST by elcid1970 ("O Muslim! My bullets are dipped in pig grease!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I think Erza is floating a trial balloon that the constitutional requirement for a president to be a natural born citizen is open to interpretation.

I am a birther.


39 posted on 01/01/2011 8:14:58 AM PST by y6162
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

I wasn’t trying to say Hamilton was being prescient about France, only that events years later showed that he was right to be concerned about a Republic set up with a weak executive. The French Revolution, for most of its existence, had a very weak executive, if any at all.

Which, as you say, led directly to dictatorship.

It is very difficult to draw comparisons between the two revolutions, as they differed in almost every possible way.


40 posted on 01/01/2011 8:18:16 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Haiku Guy

The only real problem that liberals have with the constitution is that, it set up government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.


41 posted on 01/01/2011 8:22:43 AM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Anyone who tries to piss on the Constitution is NOT an "honest" person...s/he is a traitor...

KLEIN13


42 posted on 01/01/2011 8:34:20 AM PST by FrankR (The Evil Are Powerless If The Good Are Unafraid! - R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: MaryFromMichigan
Makes me wonder what a “constitution as written by a liberal” would look like.

The European Constitution

65 pages of single-spaced gobbledygook. All good intentions and impossible implementation.

44 posted on 01/01/2011 9:43:37 AM PST by Haiku Guy (What we've got here is ... failure to communicate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Does Freedom of the Press only apply to Printing presses?

Because then it won't apply to the Internet. Or TV.
Or for that matter the parts of the print media that don't use printing presses.

45 posted on 01/01/2011 9:43:53 AM PST by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

This twaddle is quite easy to debunk when you take into consideration that the Constitution itself is based on politics and ethics from the Romans and Greeks over 2000 years past.


46 posted on 01/01/2011 10:19:39 AM PST by maxsand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

I have over the years read many “arguments” along such lines emanating from the left - even to the point of claiming that the National Guard = a militia, but since the government itself provides arms, there is no “need” for a citizen’s right to possess firearms.


47 posted on 01/01/2011 10:37:53 AM PST by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I understand and accept your observations as completely valid. Unfortunately, the left views such historical precedents as completely extraneous and irrelevant to their agenda.


48 posted on 01/01/2011 10:40:05 AM PST by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith
Freedom of the Press applies to just all sorts of things except the labels on food products and byproducts.

The government claims some sort of right to require "truth in advertising" ~ that is, commercial speech, or press, is not free.

Justice Thomas is currently the ONLY justice on the USSC who believes that freedom of speech and press should apply to commercial speech.

I agree with him.

Makes me feel like I'm living in a Fascist Dictatorship too! (BTW, that comes from years of regulating commercial speech ~ the angst of the state censor. People who don't agree with me on this issue do not, of course, love their own children.)

Cable TV is not subject to state oppression ~ when it comes to content, but the current FCC Fascist in Chief wants to get around to that and make you watch NOT FOX LEFTWINGARD ALL THE TIME network ~ he's even got a Commie Surname!

49 posted on 01/01/2011 4:04:39 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | 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