Lib Writer Ezra Klein on Constitution: It‘s ’Confusing‘ Because It’s Over 100 Years Old
- Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:17pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Washington Post writer Ezra Klein was featured on MSNBC Thursday and used his time to rail against Republicans who want to read the Constitution before the start of the new Congress. That railing included an interesting side bar regarding the document, and comments seemingly suggesting it’s obsolete:
In essence, it seems Klein is saying the Constitution is too old to understand. He echoed that sentiment (and clarified it a little) on his blog on Thursday when talking about a GOP proposal that each new bill reference its authority from the founding document.
“I’m very curious to know what the GOP — or the tea partyers they’re presumably pandering to — think will happen when every piece of legislation requires “a statement from its sponsor outlining where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to enact such legislation,” Klein writes. “What’s the evidence that this will make legislation more, rather than less, constitutional, for whatever your definition of the Constitution is?”
He uses Obamacare, which referenced interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8), as an example of a recent bill that referenced the document but that failed to gain universal appeal, and reiterates the point from his MSNBC appearance:
My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written 100 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.
His conclusion? When it comes to the Constitution, liberals and conservatives “pick and choose their moments of textual fidelity.”
Klein’s comments about the document seem to be a slippery slope: If the document can be anything to anyone at anytime, and if it’s so confusing, why bother with it?
But what he’s missing is that while the document was created long ago, it was drafted to be a forever document, and even included a process to be updated. Far from dealing with “very different problems,” the United States is still tackling taxation, free speech, and religious expression. Those seem quite relevant today.
(H/T: Stephen Gutowski)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 458 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 303 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 316 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 214 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 303 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (443)
auntmoxie.com
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:37pmPRINCIPLES do not become obsolete, “you jack-wagon!”
Report Post »jst1425
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:20pmThat was funny…great comment!
Report Post »Angelacw
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:28pmJack-wagon! HAHA
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 12:10amWhat!? Are you sayin’ that eternal principles are…eternal???
But eternal is so old and my young brain is just too confused by anything older than I am.
;)
Report Post »momsense
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:36pmExcuse me you lib freak, but the US had many more then 13 states 100 years ago. Try reading real history, not Marxist revisionism. It may help and you may also learn why Republicans want to make bills and legislation in general consonent with the Constitution.
Report Post »timej31
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:43pmHe only watches MTV and gets his orders from spooky dude.
Report Post »foxislyingtoallofyou
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 4:15pmTry and actually watch the video. How many states were than when the constitution was ratified? 13 was it OVER 100 years ago? yes. More selective outrage by the zombies of Glenda Beck
Report Post »mattcord83
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 5:02pm@FOXISLYINGTOALLOFYOU
When states were added to the Union, they agreed to the Constitution and had to ratify it within the state’s own legislature. Therefore, an old document has been ratified as recently as the 1940‘s and 50’s when the final two states joined the Union. But, I’m just an uneducated Fox News viewer, so what do I know? Nice try.
Report Post »jburke4
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 6:37pmConsidering that true history is no longer taught in our schools and we have large numbers of students who graduate without even basic reading abilities this is no surprise to me. Rather than teaching the Constitution students now learn politically slanted anti-American nonsense. The focus now is on the faults of the founding fathers ignoring their successes. The US Constitution is quite easy to understand if you read it, the text is simple and straight forward. The left, however, has always been confused by this simple document finding imaginary abortion text in it while being unable to locate such things as the right to bear arms and the right to protections from illegal search and seizure.
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 3:02am@FOXISLYING–
Report Post »Care to offer up the facts to back up that username?
Hirllr21
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:36pm“He uses Obamacare, which referenced interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8), as an example of a recent bill that referenced the document but that failed to gain universal appeal.”
Just because it referenced the Constitution, doesn’t mean that it followed the Constitutuion.
“…for whatever your definition of the Constitution is?”
Herein lies the problem. The Constitution has ONE definition – It means what it says. It is fairly easy to research the ratification debates to understand it‘s ’definition.’
The ‘Enumerated Powers’ Act would be a Godsend (yes I referenced God) to keeping congress on the straight and narrow.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:35pmPLEASE THE CONSTITUTION IS SO OLD It was written before my Father was born. As to your inability to read and understand it…… that is not something I would say on TV
Report Post »Lantern
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:34pmNon-story of a crying liberal. These dumbasses still do not understand anything about the country they live in. Brain-washed idiots.
Report Post »YellowFin
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:32pmHow old is this kid? He looks to me about 18. Kid’s now-a-days!
Report Post »bobmontgomery
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:34pmThe boy probably cannot even decipher the Bible. It was written, what, 150 years ago when there were just, like, tribes and stuff?
Report Post »time4termlimits
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:49pmThe bible is every bit of 200 years old…please get your facts right! LOL
Report Post »SafeguardOurLiberty
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:34pmWow! My fifth grade class understands the Constitution. Idiot, how do these people get a college degree? How do they get jobs? It is a basic read, with basic principals.
Report Post »time4termlimits
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:39pmPrinciples, sir, principles. You are a teacher?
Report Post »randy
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:34pmWell Ezra, that constitution that you say no one understands is what make the United States unlike any other country in the world. You and your radical progressives go ahead and try to change it and you’ll see that not only did we get off our couch, but after we set out cheese doodles and beer down, we’ll be coming after every one of you radical un-American Liberal Progressives. And may God Help you when we do.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:34pmI agree. The Constitution does need to be updated to more clearly define what the federal Government can not do to you. The language is far too open to interpretation by idiot judges.
The constitution is a document of negative liberties, it defines what the government can not do to you. It is not supposed to do anything for you. Rewrite the Constitution to make it easy for even a congressman or Hollywood type to understand and eliminate the 90% over reach of the Federal government.
Report Post »right-wing-waco
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:19pmNo, It is not a charter of negative liberties and it does not define what government can not do to you. Article 1, Section 8 is what the government MUST do on your behalf and there is NO AUTHORITY to do ANYTHING else. Government only has the authority given it in the Constitution. ALL other authority is at the State, local, or citizen level.
We simply (might) need an amendment to CLARIFY Art. 1, Sec. 8 and the welfare & commerce clauses as well as the 10th amendment.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:31pmSorry, I was echoing the lingo of our esteemed POTUS.
Report Post »“The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties that says what the government can’t do to you, it doesn’t say what the government must do on your behalf” He IS a Constitutional scholar, even professored in it.
Really the bulk of the document is a restraint of Federal power, enumerating few duties to it. The Constitution, save the Bill of Rights to some extent, has not been followed for over 100 years. Maybe there is a secret Constitution this guy is talking about.
right-wing-waco
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:40pmHi Tony,
Report Post »Yes, I thought that it sounded very familiar. What we, as citizens, must do is contact the new Reps and hammer them with the fact of Art. 1, Sec. 8. If it ain’t there, you can’t do it.
NeoFan
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 5:09pmThe constitution was designed to restrict the federal government and keep it very weak with very few exceptions like war. If we enforced it the fed would be very small and there wouldn’t be much need to even worry about our rights.
Report Post »The fed needs to be reduced in size by at least 98%. In fact we shouldn’t even care who the president is because he would have very little power to effect our lives or liberty.
TonyDarrington
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 5:34pmExactly. It was supposed to be the families who had the power, followed by local leaders and the state governor. The President was supposed to take care of the military and foreign affairs, and keep the peace between the states.
Report Post »right-wing-waco
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 8:05pmNeofan,
Report Post »Good post, you have a good idea of what the problem is. Here is the question of the year. 1)How do we make the Congress reduce the size of government in any meaningful amount? (50% minimum) 2)How do you reduce the “free-bees” to the poor class & the socialists without an all out riot / war? (e.g. the new healthcare giveaway, welfare, foodstamps, and many other “programs”.) If we don’t reduce government and the give aways the country WILL go broke, just as in Europe.
TonyDarrington
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 1:23pmThings will have to get much worse before the average American wakes up to the Socialist revolution taking place. It took 9-11 for us to wake up to Islamic Terrorism, and we are already going back to sleep. It will take economic collapse and the fruition of Obama’s top down, bottom up revolution before the average American wakes up to what is going on. It will be too late. National Socialism is coming, the Constitution, however irrelevant it is now, will cease to exist before the 2012 elections. Happy New Year.
Report Post »time4termlimits
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:34pmNot only do we give this guy a platform on national television, but he can sway his “fans” with outlandish remarks and “facts” about the document that gives him the right to do it. I mean, really, when it was first written in 1910 things were a lot different. What a complete and total ass hat!
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:43pmApril 15th 1910 to be exact LOL
Report Post »time4termlimits
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:47pmDusty, wasn’t that just after the Civil War?
Report Post »right-wing-waco
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:28pmHuh? 1910? Try written in 1787, ratified in 1789.
Report Post »Kalidor835
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 10:02am@right-wing-waco, their making a joke at Ezra’s expense since that was the date he stated in the interview. Those of us not as smart as Ezra know when it was really implemented. ;)
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:32pmHe isn’t even real. They created him. They found somebody that fits their agenda and describe him as some kind of authority on these issues. This is why these networks fail. Because they don’t seek out real experts and get their opinions. They find people that agree with their agenda and then claim they are experts, even fabricating qualifications to make them appear so in many cases.
Report Post »12thArticle
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:29pmHas he even read the Constitution?
Report Post »YellowFin
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:28pmEven if he did, he would not understand it.
Report Post »cranberry
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:29pmWonder what he thinks of the Bible then? That’s way older! LOL!
Report Post »Lantern
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:37pmI can already guess that answer.
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:50pmWell, since our Constitution was written by using principles found in the Bible (Old Testament), I guess you already have your answer . Really think the Bible based principles are why liberals (progressives or whatever) want to do away with or circumvent the Constitution so badly–it’s not flexible enough for them.
Report Post »SnapTie
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:29pmEvery time i see this guy on TV i want to throw up.I have never seen somebody so clueless when he‘s on KOKO’s show. Yes Obama good,every Republican bad.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:29pmWhy is the dork so confused? His example of the second amendment for instance, it is not at all confusing and does not require the bearer of a firearm to belong to a militia. Here Ezra, read carefully:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing cryptic here…
Report Post »1TrueOne55
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 4:40pmI believe in my right to bear arms I have two of them given to me by God, my left and right ones. And they can each hold a pistol. What the second Amendment was meant to do was to keep arms in the hands of the people because at the time there was no Federal Army to protect the US on a permanent basis, so when the Congress would determine that an Army was needed they needed a fully armed populace.
Not like in England at the time where the King’s hunters were the only “licensed” owners of firearms. The Second Amendment was written to protect the right of the People and conversely the right of the Federal Gov’t to be ready for War when it would come to the Shores of the US. Do I believe that everyone should own firearms not in today’s society since you have many that have abused their rights by murdering and killing others in a state of anger.
Report Post »Alexandra1214
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:29pmOk ok ok … I can’t help myself on this one … and since we are still in a Holiday mode … I’m gonna be nice and cute …. Let’s set the scene here …. “Meet the Falkers” movie … when Grandpa Jack first hears his beloved young Grandson Jack say a NO NO word …. “A**HOLE” ….. That about sums up this idiot!!! Happy Almost New Year to all!!!!!
Report Post »MontanaRob
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:28pm100 years old….huh, wha…?
What a dolt, prat, pinhead, moron, fool, freak, imbecile, dullard, cretin, commie pinko f@**ot…should I go on?
Report Post »Caesar Rodney
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 1:02amI’m a die-hard conservative, but, you’re out of line! He may be a liberal and all that, but you don’t need to call him a f@**t. How would you like it if he said that about you? “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” – Matthew 7:12. You have every right to call him whatever names you wanna, but please, consider what you’re saying about him first. We’re representatives of the conservative movement, but, more importantly (if you’re a Christian), you‘re supposed to be show God’s love. If you can’t do either of those things, then at least try to be polite and keep the most offensive stuff to yourself.
Report Post »Navymommy
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 10:40am‘No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive’ Ghandi. This young man needs a bit of exposure. He remains stagnant because he only experiences like-mindedness. The Constitution is written in simple and proper English. He may need remedial work in reading and comprehension. His age and public school background coincides with the great dumbing down of America. Maybe some travel and exposure to different opinions and cultures will help to increase his knowledge.
Report Post »beekeeper
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 10:42pmSexual orientation doesn’t enter in to it, and you only undermine your comments by tossing which a comment…
Report Post »Skwerl E. Muckenfutch
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:27pmI’m stunned anyone would consider Ezra Klein any sort of authority on history, Constitutional law or grammar. Sadly I am cursed with eternal optimism.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:26pmezra is a very smart person who doesn’t know anything this is what we call “a tool”
Report Post »Josh
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:26pm“No binding power on anything”. Nice
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:25pmIf it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Keep your hands off our Constitution.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:40pmIt’s not broke, we don’t follow it and because of it we are BROKE.
Report Post »ANTIFA
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:50pm“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Report Post »BeckIsNuts
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 3:18pmYou can start by updating the Koran, and we’ll see how that goes.
Report Post »Liberty_Forever
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 5:06pmEzra Klein, with his idiotic remarks about the constitution, DOES serve one valuable purpose: He‘s the poster boy for what happens when you DON’T teach your children about the constitution and why it’s so precious.
Report Post »SlimnRanger
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 5:21pmWell said Beckisnuts
Report Post »the_ancient
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:25pmActually the Constitution is very clear, and people that embrace freedom and individual liberty can see the meaning with out the need of outside interpreters.
It is those who want to control and imped freedom in favor of massive government that the Constitution because “muddy” and must be “interpreted” to fit their view
Report Post »KEA
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:25pmOh My God! What is happening in this world. This nut job who is given a mouth peice to the nation doesnt even know when the Constitution was written? This is a discrace!
Report Post »YellowFin
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:25pmSo, any document, book, or literature over a hundred years old is irrelevant now.
Report Post »He only reads and able to understand documents written, what six months ago, or maybe on year ago? He would be really lost if he had to try understanding the value of the Bible!
BlueStrat
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 4:34pmHe refers to 100 years because that‘s when the Progressive movement succeeded in enacting some of it’s first extra-Constitutional Acts and laws and thus “progressing past” the Constitution.
So, in the Progressive’s minds, *this* Constitution (the “living document” version) IS only about 100 years old.
To be a Progressive “true believer”, it appears that one necessarily has to leave history, conventional logical thought processes, and even the reality everyone else exists in behind. Small wonder it’s been discovered to be a brain defect/disease.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to tailor an extremely contagious gene-modifying virus that would alter the Progressive genome to cure their affliction? It would save more lives worldwide than curing AIDS and cancer combined! Now *there’s* a worthy project for the US’s “secret black science projects” boys to tackle!
Report Post »Chett
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:24pm“Written 100 years ago” maybe he should go back to school and learn to read a calendar for starters.
Report Post »the_ancient
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:27pmI think he might be referring to the “living document” movement, that is about 100 years old, no that cant be in as 100 year ago the US has 46-48 states (cant remember the exact dates but most of the Current Union has been in for atleast 100 years)
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:35pmMaybe if he has a problem with understanding that the year “1910” is not the year “1787”, then the confusion may be coming more from him than the things he examines?
Report Post »oldeagle101
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:35pmI agree this dumb ass should go on the O’Reilly factor and say something stupid like that..Bill will eat him alive.
Report Post »knotaclu
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:50pmshoot, we’ve added 44 states since then to get to our current 57…
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 7:07pmYeah… I think maybe Ezra is just dumb. Sounds like she missed some old school.
Report Post »VanGrungy
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:19pmEzra Kline is only employed because he has no qualms about lying outright… JournoLista…
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:26pm“My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. ”
Actually it’s quite clear. Even a grade school child can tell you that interstate commerce doesn‘t apply to most things it’s cited as applying to.
There is no confusion in the Constitution, it’s very, very clear on all counts. The only “confusion” comes from those who wish to circumnavigate it by citing phony references, such as with, hey just like you said Ezra, Obamacare.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe Ezra could focus more on rapscallions and lawless rogues trying to undermine our Republic, and less on contributing to the destruction of our founding documents and principles.
DimmuBorgir
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:28pmwhat a sad sack of man-child.
Ezra…a name like that might lead you to believe he has different motives for bring down the govt and bringing forth a new world order
Cobra Blue
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:29pmHis first statement is most telling…“it has no binding power on anything”. That should answer all of your questions about the liberal progressive agenda and the fact that it is not business as usual in Washington. Obama and his administration have deemed the foundational document of this country as irrelevant….meaningless….not binding on anything. And you think that fighting this Administration using conventional methods is going to work? I have a really nice piece of ocean front property in Arizona for sale cheap. The Founders did not use conventional wisdom and methods as set forth by Great Britian. They used unconventioanl methods and look what happened. Why would you think we are any different? Get Prepared to take a stand…
Curator_JDR
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:31pmEzra doesn’t value history or timeless values. Did the founders think the Greek philosophers and the Hebrew bible were too old to be relevant? I think Karl Marx is too “old to be relevant” Enough with the brain dead traitors. Public ridicule through art (like animated cartoons) will make the citizens laugh at them.
Here’s a too funny animated short feature where Sarah Palin is the hero. “A Not So Grimm Fairy Tale” … Politically Incorrect Satire featuring “Bearah Sailin” and her grizzly bear clan taking back America from the Progressive clan of Sorge Goros & Nancy Poles-i-don’t-see.
http://www.marcrubin.com/hairmerica.ivnu
Report Post »Muslim in Chief
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:34pmYes, I can see where Liberals are confused by WE THE PEOPLE
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:37pmGhost: Very well said.
Report Post »@Poli_Mis
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:37pmHey DIMMUBORGIR
Yes, indeed I did flag your racist comment. I don’t subscribe to anything political correct but your comment sir, was offensive and stupid.
All you are doing is making it easier for the enemies of this country to point the finger and scream racism. In fact, you go one better and make it easy for them to categorize us as tinfoil hat wearing lunatics.
Now, why don’t you skate your sorry ass on over to infodorks.com and spank your little monkey all day to the pablum that Mr. Jones spews.
dwh320
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:38pmNo surprise here. Progressives have always felt the Constitution was a road block to their dream of a socialist utopia.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:38pmWonder where he got all dem smarts…He’s a really fart smeller, I mean smart feller…
He needs to just shoot himself now before the angry mobs drag him into the streets later. He is not smart enough to survive.
Report Post »Satyr
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:40pm“Yes its a gimmick…I mean…eh-heh…you could say two things about it is one is that it has no binding power…”
WHAT!!! IT”S PROBABLY THE ONLY HONEST PIECE OF GOVERNMENT PARCHMENT EVER PRODUCED!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!!! COMMUNISTS > SOCIALISM > LIBERAL > PROGRESSIVE THE WORD CHANGE IS ALL THE SAME SEND THESE D-BAGS TO CHINA!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:48pmWhat part of “Congress shall make no law……..” does he not understand
Report Post ».Where does the Constitution say anything about signing up to a miltia to have a gun? That should be one thing we don’t want. Nazis and Anarchists start up militias
taskmaster78
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 12:54pmYes but is he as stupid as he sounds? “it’s because the document is more then a hundred years old” OMG, How many writings that go far be on the age of the Constitution would he just say “it’s to confusing” yes to a 10 year old.
Report Post »IndyGuy
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:00pmYeah…English was is so hard to understand when it is over 100 years old…SHEESH…
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:05pmOH my GOD … are these people for real? They support 2,000 page bills (unread) but can’t understand the Constitution .. a very CLEAR document .. that they DO NOT want to FOLLOW .. there in lies the “rub”.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:07pmEzra probably finds the Bible too confusing as well…bet he’s never read it or the Constitution…wannna bet?
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:07pmWhat is confusing about the Constitution? Read it, and see exactly what it means, and the founders own writings in regards to it as well. Simple solution.
Maybe I need to come up with a card to send to the Progressives saying “Read the Constitution, it will take courage and guts to read the Constitution.”
Report Post »Cherished Emblems
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:11pmLiberals use the Constitution in such perverse ways! In Moore’s “documentary” Capitalism…he reads the line. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union” and pulls out just what he wants… “People, Perfect, and Union” to make a case that the founding fathers were talking about socialism. Idiots, everyone of them!
Report Post »BMartin1776
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:15pmThe Constitution was written by geniuses, none of the blowhards today could have a rational conversation with our Founding Fathers. This useful idiot, tool of the left would be manhandled and sent running back under the rock he came out of if any of them were around today.
This is the mentality we have to contend with so many want the Constitution belittled and trivialized. Its one of the reasons so many are against religion. You make religion nothing but a joke it would then open the door to attack the Constitution as its base is from religious right reaffirming god given rights. If there is no God then how can you have the Bill of Rights right!?
Dont forget what the head radical has said “The constitution is a deeply flawed document.”
Time to take things up a notch or two and give these people a “lethal” dose of their own medicine through http://www.savingtherepublic.com
Report Post »NeoFan
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:17pmThe reason they don‘t understand the constitution is because they can’t find anywhere in it where its states the power the government has over the people. They have been taught by Government schools all their life that the Fed is all powerful. The Constitution was created to control the Government and not the people.
Report Post »Xcori8r
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:17pmMy amygdalae hurt. This dipweed needs to be fired – “1. It has no binding power on anything .. 2. what people believe it says differs from person to person”. That’s all above his pay grade. And besides, that revisionist tripe and our general acquiescence to is the reason for our present predicament.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:21pmOMG : Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) HIS IS ALMOST 26 and he is called on to talk about the United States Constitution. ARE YOU KIDDING ME
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:27pmThe pointy headed idiots don’t know how to think honestly. That becomes a problem when they are confronted with an agreement between the people and government as written in the Constitution. The Constitution has a provision for updating and changes but the liberal criminals don’t like to follow the law. Take note, liberal Supremes.
Report Post »Tyr
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:33pmThe United States Constitution has served as a framework for the government of the United States and as a guarantee of individual freedoms since 1788 not 1776 or 75 (or whenever else you braintrusts think it was) , but from the outset, progressive thinkers had ideas on how to improve on what the founders had created. Within 18 months, the Bill of Rights was passed, adding 10 amendments to the document. From 1789 to 1992, The Constitution was amended 27 times from 1789 to 1992, and through judicial review, the meanings of articles and phrases within the Constitution have changed many times. The Constitution has no provision, directly, for full-scale change. except the Amendment Convention as noted in Article 5. The limits of such an Amendment Convention are questionable because there has never been one. The far-Left political intellectuals however state that a Convention would be able to propose any change to the Constitution it decided to, including full replacement. Even Thomas Jefferson was wary of the limits of an unchanging Constitution. He proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years. But James Madison, thought that would create political turmoil every 20 years, and noted that the way the Constitution is now structured, it implies an acceptance of the status quo unless explicitly changed by Convention or replaced through armed struggle.
Report Post »All Amendments passed in the last 221 years have been done so, by Congress, illegally and outside the guidance of Article V of the United States Constitution. Look it up for yourselves!
emmanuel Goldstein
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:36pmEzra is a moron on so many levels it does not even qualify for a response except “Hope you enjoy prison when the truth comes out.”
Report Post »TheBMT
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:44pmWatching John Adams today, he said a great line while watching it, which when said so many years ago, still rings true today. This country is a republic that will be ruled by LAWS(constitution) and not by MEN.
Report Post »101
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:49pm.
The Constitution For Kids…
http://www.usconstitution.net/constkidsK.html
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:54pmFreedom, human rights and common sense are always difficult for Communists to understand.
Report Post »P C BE DAMNED
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 1:55pmWhat an ignorant young man. You know there is a similar attack on the King James Bible as many say you can’t understand it . Studies have been made and the King James Version of the Bible reads at a 4th grade level and most of the new versions read at a much higher level of ignorance and error. I meant to say it that way. You know back in the founding fathers days they were highly intelligent men who most of them could speak 7 languages. But they believed in writing documents in common language and not in the crap the lawyers of today write in to hide their crimes against America. Back to the young man, he is not uneducated at all he is just a hater of Freedom and is un American. It really is that simple. God I love America!
Report Post »P C BE DAMNED
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:03pm@poli_mis
I reported you for being an enemy of free speach. Go back to namby pamby land you jerkwaggon. And I hope you are offended and don’t like it. God I love America!
Report Post »Al Otto
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:15pmThe Constitution is old and is confussing….. to all COMMIES and SOCIALIST PIGS
Report Post »79thstreet
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:16pmLibs don’t like what it says,so lets keep up with the times,add all PC bull—–! Of course no more mention of God maybe replace it with allah, everyone has all these rights except an American citizen! Can anyone tell me what the advantage is to be a citizen anymore? It seems everyone has more rights than we do!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »chazman
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:17pmHe (it) sounds like Saul Alinsky’s sickly little brother … has this moron even read our constitution? Should we send it a copy?
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:21pm“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,””
That’s right, it doesn’t; And so it’s not an issue. It also doesn’t say if “well-regulated” means having matching uniforms – again, not an issue.
But “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is crystal clear. Who are the people? It’s the citizens.
Besides, why would a government need to be told that they’d better allow the militia that they themselves control to keep and bear arms? There are always government militia on duty, and they have armories – they’ve got plenty of weapons at hand. And if you said that the militia needs to have weapons at home to be able to defend the state at a moments notice, then certainly the rest of the citizens are in imminant danger as well. It’s a good thing those government militia members have weapons at their homes which are peppered about the citizenry, otherwise they might have to assemble and be well-regulated.
Remember that the reason offered for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” (that is, to own weapons and to wear them on their persons) is that such is necessary for the security of a “free state”. This is important wording, because in actual fact, arms are necessary for the security of any kind of state – free, or otherwise. The point of specifically mentioning a “free” state is because under the Constitution, all individuals have the unalienable right to liberty – so the Second Amendment is for the benefit of individual citizens, AND IS A WARNING TO THOSE IN GOVERNMENT.
Also, remember that the context of the Constitution/Bill of Rights is the Declaration of Independence. The point of founding America was to secure unalienable rights by providing a limited government that would not overstep those just powers granted to it by the consent of the governed.
Report Post »IVillageIdiot
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:42pmLib goals = Cleon Skousen observations of CPUSA/USSR goals of 1962:
Goal # 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Report Post »rubintheartist
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:55pmAnother Idiot? or Seditious Traitor? Well…. I say traitor using whatever B.S. he can to refute our liberty. Maybe he should look at eating utensils – it might be better to eat with your hands. After all eating utensils were invented a long time ago and might be obsolete too. If you want to laugh at his mentality I suggest watching this very funny comedy animated film http://www.marcrubin.com/Hairmerica.ivnu
Report Post »guyperram
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 2:57pmI am an Elite. I went to the right schools. I am super intelligent. I will tell you how to live your life. What a waste of an education, and a “human” being (most likely just a useful idiot). Plain American English is just to hard for idiots to understand.
Report Post »Elite? No, just another idiot!
Lepanto
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 3:09pmReply to PAPERPUSHERMJ
Report Post »Age does not necessarily mean Wisdom of the lack of it. My father was one of the smartest people I’ve known even though he had only an 8th grade education. By the time he was 26 years old, he had grown up during the depression one of 12 children in the family. He was a disabled veteran of WWII. At 26 he was married and the father of the first of his four children. He was a hard worker well-liked and respected by those who met him.
Ezra Kline does give some credence to your statement though.
Major Infidel
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 3:59pmWell said, GhostOfJefferson.
Report Post »DVT
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 4:01pmConfusing? What? cant progressives read? the little scribbles thingys are called letters. Those letters are put to together in certain sequences to form words, those words form sentences. Those sentences spell out the rights and responsibilties of this Country and its citizens, Those citizens are called WE THE PEOPLE…simple.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 4:36pmLib Writer Ezra Klein on Constitution – It‘s ’Confusing‘ Because It’s Over 100 Years Old
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ezra-klein-on-constitution-its-confusing-because-its-over-100-years-old/
“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,””
That’s right, it doesn’t; And so it’s not an issue. It also doesn’t say if “well-regulated” means having matching uniforms – again, not an issue.
But “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is crystal clear. Who are the people? It’s the citizens.
Besides, why would a government need to be told that they’d better allow the militia that they themselves control to keep and bear arms? There are always government militia on duty, and they have armories – they’ve got plenty of weapons at hand. And if you said that the militia needs to have weapons at home to be able to defend the state at a moments notice, then certainly the rest of the citizens are in imminant danger as well. It’s a good thing those government militia members have weapons at their homes which are peppered about the citizenry, otherwise they might have to assemble and be well-regulated.
Remember that the reason offered for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” (that is, to own weapons and to wear them on their persons) is that such is necessary for the security of a “free state”. This is important wording, because in actual fact, arms are necessary for the security of any kind of state – free, or otherwise. The point of specifically mentioning a “free” state is because under the Constitution, all individuals have the unalienable right to liberty – so the Second Amendment is for the benefit of individual citizens, AND IS A WARNING TO THOSE IN GOVERNMENT.
Also, remember that the context of the Constitution/Bill of Rights is the Declaration of Independence. The point of founding America was to secure unalienable rights by providing a limited government that would not overstep those just powers granted to it by the consent of the governed.
Report Post »AmericanSoldier
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 4:41pmIt’s not even close to confusing. Especially compared to most legal documents today.
As far as the argument against the 2nd Amendment, here it is in full
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Any english speaking individual with enough common sense could understand this but if you can’t it just takes four simple words added to the very beginning to make this sentence sound perfect (I wish the founders had just done that)
“[In order to have] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
So it says in order to have that well regulated militia which is necessary to be free, the right of the people to be armed won’t be infringed. No where in that sentence does it state that the people must be signed into a regulated Militia to maintain arms. It just says that to have a militia, the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
I‘m sitting here with just a high school diploma and it doesn’t sound like friggin’ rocket science!
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 4:44pmLepanto: Without getting into a long conversation I don’t think one can be born with Wisdom. Wisdom is accrued over time and experience. Your Father sounds like the quintessential American, loving life while learning the lessons of that full life. Hope he is still with you.
Report Post »Paperpushermj
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 5:38pm(There’s no reason to censor this post, TheBlaze. Please allow it through.)
“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,””
That’s right, it doesn’t; And so it’s not an issue. It also doesn’t say if “well-regulated” means having matching uniforms – again, not an issue.
But “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is crystal clear. Who are the people? It’s the citizens.
Besides, why would a government need to be told that they’d better allow the militia that they themselves control to keep and bear arms? There are always government militia on duty, and they have armories – they’ve got plenty of weapons at hand. And if you said that the militia needs to have weapons at home to be able to defend the state at a moments notice, then certainly the rest of the citizens are in imminant danger as well. It’s a good thing those government militia members have weapons at their homes which are peppered about the citizenry, otherwise they might have to assemble and be well-regulated.
Remember that the reason offered for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” (that is, to own weapons and to wear them on their persons) is that such is necessary for the security of a “free state”. This is important wording, because in actual fact, arms are necessary for the security of any kind of state – free, or otherwise. The point of specifically mentioning a “free” state is because under the Constitution, all individuals have the unalienable right to liberty – so the Second Amendment is for the benefit of individual citizens, AND IS A WARNING TO THOSE IN GOVERNMENT.
Also, remember that the context of the Constitution/Bill of Rights is the Declaration of Independence. The point of founding America was to secure unalienable rights by providing a limited government that would not overstep those just powers granted to it by the consent of the governed.
Report Post »Slick Willie
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 5:51pm“Lib Writer Ezra Klein on Constitution: It‘s ’Confusing‘ Because It’s Over 100 Years Old”
*********************************************************************************************
Yep…To a complete idiot it would be confusing!! This guy is a clown.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 6:08pmIf the Constitution is so easy to understand, then why did our Founding Fathers set up the Supreme Court to interpret it? Just asking! I mean they must have thought that people would have a hard time understanding it since interpretation is what the Supreme Court does! http://maboulette.wordpress.com
Report Post »Lonescrapper
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 6:10pmLike that very confusing Magna Carta, and the even more confusing concept of gravity. Maybe we should get rid of math too… that’s too old and confusing.
Report Post »AnnMarie
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 6:11pmMaybe he should get the book on tape which recites it so he can listen to it a couple of times in order to understand it… OR is this a sign of the people who are the voice of influence for some????
Report Post »tradexpertbuysell
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 6:17pmWhere the law of the land has no binding power = dictatorship
What am I missing here?
Where the law of that land binds tyrants = freedom
Nothing confusing about that? Who is this nerd anyway?
Oh “Washington Post” contributor to “MSNBC”. Two buzzwords for propaganda. First places I’d be looking for budget cuts starting in January! I’m sure MSNBC would find it very confusing trying to buy groceries and paying rent without a paycheck anymore.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 7:29pmDear Ezra,
You’re so right. The Constitution is difficult and almost impossible to work with when you try to reinterpret the clearly stated words for whatever the cause du jour is.
Report Post »Holly Woods
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 7:51pmOne quick question for this JournoLista boy genuis. . . .
If the Constitution has no “real, binding powers”, then why does every member of the legislative body (Houses of Congress), the Supreme Court, the Military and even the President of the United States of America take a public pledge to support and defend it?
Report Post »JESUS-IS-LORD
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 7:59pmIt‘s confusing because it isn’t the Bible, which is the only constitution you need.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 8:11pmThe problem is… liberals have never tried to understand the Constitution because it doesn’t allow for their stupid ideas!
Report Post »AmericanSoldier
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 8:13pm@WALKWITHME1966 I don’t see in Article three where it gives them this power to interpret. Could you please provide the actual article and section where it gives the SCOTUS the power to interpret the Constitution, thank you.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 8:13pm@walkwithme1966,
“If the Constitution is so easy to understand, then why did our Founding Fathers set up the Supreme Court to interpret it? Just asking! I mean they must have thought that people would have a hard time understanding it since interpretation is what the Supreme Court does!”
The Supreme Court doesn’t interpret it in the sense that the Supreme Court is the source of its meaning for any given generation. The Supreme Court, having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, is beholden to the meaning of the Constitution PRIOR TO becoming a member of the Supreme Court – which means that, aside from those amendments, or interpretations thereof, which violate unalienable rights, the Constitution retains its original meaning, though modified by those amendments which do not violate unalienable rights.
In other words, if, like Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, you have a different understanding of the Constitution than the Founders (or if you believe it is fundamentally flawed, like Barack Obama), than you are not fit to take the oath to uphold it, and to do so with the intent to impose one’s own interpretation other than which the Founders intended is to commit treason, and no citizen is beholden to the pretended legislation of those so sworn.
Report Post »Crewbot
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 8:35pmThe only reason the constitution confuses Klein is not because it’s over 100, it’s because his I.Q. is under 100. Does the moron actually believe the constitution was written in 1910 and we only had 13 states then? He’s obviously a public high school graduate. Or at least spent 7 or 8 years trying.
So I guess, according to him, any part of the constitution 100 years or older should be dismissed. Sounds to me like he wants the 13th Amendment repealed so as to bring back slavery.
Report Post »WHAT A RACIST!
G.W. Dobbs
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 8:43pmWhy give THIS Ignoramous any Air Time? WHY?
Report Post »Blazergirl
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 10:14pmWhat a Nimrod. The Constitution was written for ALL of us Amercians. It’s pretty basic and self-explanatorily. At this point in time I agree that that the Constitution seems pretty irrelevant for the fact that a lot of Americans are clueless of it’s contents. So thank you MSNBC. Keep talking about this “issue”. Maybe it will wake up those that are still asleep in this country. Maybe they’ll figure out that our God given rights are being stolen from us a little everyday. Maybe there is still hope for America!
Report Post »proudinfidel54
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 10:52pmI can see where the Constitution confuses people….after all people were so much smarter back in the days when they had no liberal college education,
Report Post »ozz
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 11:31pm@walkwithme1966
Report Post »“If the Constitution is so easy to understand, then why did our Founding Fathers set up the Supreme Court to interpret it? ” The supreme court was not established to interpret the constitution you misinformation distributing cretin. It was established to interpret the laws to follow using the constitution as a ruler to measure them by. It was established to insure the other 2 branches of government obeyed their charter of existence (the constitution). It was established to insure no law violated a clearly written plain English document. The whole interpret bull shizz came much later because you progressive ******** decided to claim black was white and then demanded every one agree. When the American people laughed at the absurdity you revised history infiltrated our schools and repeated your absurd lie tell the idiot masses started to question..is black really white ?
The perfect example is the 2nd amendment. There is no gray in it no convolution. It is in plain English. “the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” You ******** try to ignore the coma in front of it clearly separating it from the statement before it. Your choice to ignore it does not cloud its clarity. It only clouds your credibility or ability to understand English.
bbdarthchris077
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 1:26amHow do weather men predict future weather patterns? They predict them from studying past weather patterns, and design computer programs that can take past weather events and compare them to more recent weather patterns. After the computer program analyzes the current weather, the program then makes a suggestion for future weather patterns. That is what is presented to us on the evening news, a suggestion of the likely events that might happen in the near future. I believe people that study history can almost do the same thing, they can study current events and compare them to history and come up with a suggestion or a somewhat accurate scenario of coming events.
Report Post »>
> Let’s first examine the attitude of the American populace today. To quote an article from the Pew Research web site (1) “By almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days. A new Pew Research Center survey finds a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government – a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.” This poll found that 77% of the people polled are frustrated or angry with the government; also that only 19% are basically content with the government. This poll also found that 22% of the people polled trust the government. Breaking it down further, 69% has a negative view towards Congress compared to only 22% having a positive view of Congress. Breaking down the view of the Executive branch you get the following numbers, 10% excellent, 30% good, 28% fair, and 30% poor.
>
> According to the numbers above it is fair to say that the American people or somewhat at odds with its government. For example the Executive branch‘s challenge to the recently passed Arizona law that enabled officers to determine if a person that they stopped are here in America legally. Although numerous examples were provided to show that the law mirrored a federal law, federal authorities misconstrued it to be profiling, and thus struck it down. When we look at the Declaration of Independence we see an example of this (2)”He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”
>
> President Obama has appointed many czars to his cabinet. These advisors implement Obama’s policy on numerous aspects. By appointing czars, Obama did not have to seek Congressional approval for any of the 33 czars. Although appointing czars is not a new idea, in some cases it goes to show you how out of touch our government has become. For example if we again look at The Declaration of Independence we see that the colonist’s had a similar problem with the king,(2)“He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.” For example Todd, Stern’s appointment as the Climate Czar, if you believe in Global Warming this guy would be your best friend. But if you take my attitude towards Global Warming this guy’s ideas will drive you insane, all awhile being paid out of the taxpayer funded coffers, and accountable to nobody except for the like minded president.
>
> Let me pose a question, can a government represent its people if a majority of the governed opposes the actions of said government? As shown in the (1) Pew Poll, 77% of those people polled are angry or frustrated with the government. I believe, if that number translates over to the whole population, then the answer is no, the government does not represent the people. For example, it turns out that this new healthcare legislation is going to be a new tax that we are going to have to pay. To quote an article from Bloomberg (3) “Under the reconciliation bill that is now before the Senate, individuals who don’t purchase insurance would be subject to a fine of $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016. Individuals may be subject to a charge equal to as much as 2.5 percent of their income in 2016, if the total is greater than the flat payment.” To tax, is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. If you believe the way I do, that for the government to represent the governed, than a majority of those people have to be in agreement with the government. Also if you believe that the majority of the population did not want the new healthcare, then you would also have to agree with me that we are being taxed without representation. Another example right out of The Declaration Of Independence, (2) “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:.”
>
> (2) “But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.” There is a peaceful way to conduct a revolution (4) “But even Jefferson considered the election of 1800 a revolution –“as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form.”” I find it very comforting that we the people have a voice in the way or government runs. Although not every person gets his/her way, we have an avenue to hold our elected officials feet to the fire. I sure hope we as a nation can endure these hard times we find ourselves in. I also hope we have another peaceful revolution come the second of November, at the ballet box.
Kalidor835
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 9:54am@walkwithme1966, to simplify what the others have said in response to your comment, the SCOTUS isn‘t meant interpret the Constitution it’s meant to ENFORCE IT. It‘s the progressive mind set of yourself and others like you that think that it’s a “living” document or one of “negative liberties” that gives the SCOTUS the interpretive powers. The Constitution itself does not give the Supreme Court that right.
Report Post »DonkRoberts
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 10:50amI also notice he doesn’t realize the Constitution was adopted over 230 years ago not 100 to begin with. Secondly, it is a contract with a legitimate means of amending it – and that is not through activist, liberal, Progressive judges.
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 11:03amI guess the Bible would be really confusing and non binding because it was written over the past 2000 years? We should discard Plato and Aristotle because they are a bit too old also. Watch out this is end game stuff when you see the lame stream attacking the Constitution is plain view? Time to restore the Fed back to the place they belong. Since the States wrote the Constitution and created a larger umbrella (FEDS) to cover limited national issues, it is time for the states to NULLIFY the over reach.
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 1:40pmWashington Post writer Ezra Klein
WHO?
Report Post »I swear any Liberal crackhead with an fake online degree can make a statement today and suddenly the whole foundation of the country gets put into question like they had such a profound revelation that it rivals the discovery of fire!
Once again WHO?
KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 1:45pmIt’s these same types of Insane people who can claim a super knowledge of all the details of the entire formation of life, land, sea and the entire universe billions of years ago but then claim that understanding a 100 year old document is the greatest challenge mankind has ever known.
Report Post »ilovethiscountry
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 8:37pmf he has trouble understanding the Constitution It would seem that there has been a deficiency in his education. It must have been in those public schools.
Report Post »beekeeper
Posted on December 31, 2010 at 10:27pmI quote:
“What’s the evidence that this will make legislation more, rather than less, constitutional, for whatever your definition of the Constitution is?”
Well, Mr. Smarty-pants, if a bill isn’t Constitutional, the section will either be blank, Or full of specious rationalizations. If a bill is Constitutional it will simply cite the relevant portion of the Constitution. Having the section doesn‘t ’make‘ a bill ’more’ Constitutional, it requires the sponsors to explain the bill.
Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians had something other than contempt and insults when citizens ask them what in the Constitution gives Congress the right to do (whatever they want to). If you don’t like the Constitution, change it – there’s a process defined in the Constitution to do that, don’t change the meanings of the words instead…
Report Post »