Apparently we all misunderstood what Washington Post writer Ezra Klein was trying to say on MSNBC Thursday morning as he derided Republicans' planned reading of the U.S. Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives as a "gimmick."
After Klein was criticized for saying that the Constitution was "confusing" because it was written more than 100 years ago, Klein took to his Washington Post blog to once again condemn the GOP's proposal as "toxic" and to clarify what he meant in his Thursday morning MSNBC appearance:
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!
Here's the original video:
What do you think? Did Klein clarify anything?