The Constitution Is Written In English
by Big Dog on Dec 31, 2010 at 11:39 Political
The liberal genius (I know, like a certain fat man in a red suit, they do not exist) named Ezra Klein is having a bit of trouble. Klein, the person who started JournoList and is a contributor to liberal outlets, was on MSNBC during a discussion about the Constitution. The discussion was about the new Republican controlled House planning on having the Constitution read aloud to the House body. Klein does not think that this will be productive because he thinks the “Constitution has no binding power on anything” and is “confusing because it’s over 100 years old.”
The age of the Constitution is more than twice what Klein stated but what is a hundred years or so among liberals?
The Constitution is the document that outlines our government. It is the governing document of this nation and it is what we base our laws on. I would say that this means it absolutely has binding power (but if not, can we ignore Klein’s First Amendment right to say such stupid things and silence him). This, for Klein’s benefit, is why the Constitutionality of laws is debated in our system of government and why we have a Supreme Court. That body decides if a law is Constitutional and thus, has any binding power.
I also can’t figure out why it is so confusing. It is written in ENGLISH. Might be difficult for immigrants who do not have the common sourtesy to learn our language but for the ENGLISH speaking among us, it should pose no problem.
Sure, there are words that had different meanings then but we have dictionaries from then and scholars versed in such things to tell us how the words were used. Better yet, we have the writings of the men who actually wrote the Constitution and those writings explain what they did and what they meant.
The Second Amendment is easy to understand if one reads the words of the people who wrote it. Those words describe what they meant so it is easy to see how it applies.
The confusion for liberal morons like Klein is that they do not take the time and effort to research these things and, more importantly in their case, they do not want to know what was meant. These people prefer to think of the Constitution as a living document that can be interpreted in different ways for different times.
This is not what the Founders had in mind. They were brilliant in designing a system that could be changed should something no longer be appropriate or if new situations arise that could not have possibly been imagined over 200 years ago.
But to Klein the Constitution is confusing because it is more than 100 years old. Perhaps this is why liberals have trouble understanding the Bible. It is a lot more than 200 years old and was translated from Hebrew. To be fair to Klein who is Jewish, perhaps he has trouble with the Torah for the same reason…
Under Klein’s premise, can we scrap laws that are more than 100 years old? The Sixteenth Amendment (allowing them to tax our income) will be 100 years old in 2013. Can we scrap it as too confusing? Then again, the tax laws are confusing so maybe he is on to something.
Oh wait, no the Constitution is clear about it but politicians have muddied the waters with intrusive rules.
In any event, it looks like we should start weeding out anything that was written more than 100 years ago because those things would be too confusing for morons like Klein.
Then again, liberals might like that because they have been able to rewrite history and if we scrap the stuff Klein considers confusing then we will be left with liberal myth.
Just as liberals like it.
No, I think we should keep what we have and reform the educational system instead.
If our founding document, written in ENGLISH, is too much for a college educated guy like Klein the obviously the educational system has failed.
Which would explain why Obama, Pelosi, Reid and many other politicians of all stripes have trouble with the Constitution.
Ezra Klein, if you happen across this blog post it was written in 2010 and in English. You should have no trouble understanding that I think you are a moron.
Isn’t if strange that the Constitution is never confusing when liberals use it to justify things that are not even in it (like abortion) or to twist parts to fit an agenda (like individual mandates)?
Source:
Breitbart
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: breitbart, constitution, english, ezra klein, journolist, moron. liberal
If you watch the video you’ll note he did not say the “Constitution has no binding power on anything” but rather when asked if he thinks reading the Constitution aloud in Congress is a “gimmick” he says:
As far as I can tell the word “it” refers to the “gimmick” which is the subject he’s addressing and not the Constitution itself. If he meant the Constitution he would have said so and would not have then needed to specifically addressed the Constitution as the subject of the second point.
Also your 100 years attack on him is silly. He’s not saying the Constitution isn’t binding or that it doesn’t matter because it’s over 100 years old.
He’s very clearly stating the obvious: The problem is not that people haven’t read the Constitution. It’s just that each person has a sense of what it means and what can be done. Just like you have your opinion and I have my opinion.
You think your view is more founded because you’ve read more than just the Constitution. That’s Klein’s exact point. While you were busy taking him out of context and calling him a moron you were actually making his point.
Ultimately what the Constitution means and how it applies to everyday situations is laid down by the Supreme Court. Reading the text aloud is absolutely a gimmick. Get ready for it. The GOP is long on gimmicks and short on leadership. The 112th is gonna be great.
Only you could defend a moron.
The Constitution is NOT confusing. One only needs to apply it as intended. It becomes confusing for people like you and Klein who think it needs to be interpreted.
The age of the document has not bearing on whether it is confusing. Klein is a moron as we see from this and from his JournoList posts.
What the Constitution means is what the Founders intended. Certainly Judicial activists can interpret it the way they want but that does not mean they are right. It means they failed to apply the intended meaning instead of the living meaning that liberals have invented.
And no, Klein’s point is that because it was written over 100 years ago it is confusing. My point is, it is not confusing.
It gets confusing when people try to interpret it for their own benefit rather than reading it and what the Founders said about what they wrote.
Certainly a Justice should be able to handle that. My God, they don’t work that often or handle that many cases that they and their staff can’t do research.
But as usual you defend a liberal moron. I expected you would come to his defense.
He is a moron.
Now you might be right that he is saying it is a gimmick rather than it referring to the Constitution though it is not exactly clear considering the content (even you admit it is “as far as you can tell”)
But there is NO DOUBT he said it is confusing because it was written over 100 years ago.
It is not confusing. Care to point to any part and show me where it confuses anyone?
To be sure, you must read the associated documents. That is why we have them.
Yes, Klein’s point is that the document itself is confusing…without context. You say it’s not confusing but yet you do need the context to make sense of it. You don’t see the conflict? You’re still making Klein’s point but for the record make sure you call him a moron a few more times so we all get how you feel about him.
No, I don’t need the other references to know what they are talking about and you know you are deliberately confusing the issue.
I have said many times in the past that IF people find it confusing they can look at what the Founders wrote.
However, you act as if the Constitution is the only document we have and that Klein is some kind of genius for a retarded observation. What next, a book is confusing because one might need a dictionary to define a word?
There are some words that had different meanings and we know how to address that issue which would not be an issue if the Constitution were taught.
No, no contradiction because I know what it means AND I have the information to back up my beliefs.
The problem is, liberals refuse to see what is meant and when they are confused they refuse to read what the Founders wrote and what their intentions were. It is not a contradiction to use references if they happen to be needed.
Yes, Klein is a moron but not solely because of this. Have you read some of what this jackass has written?
And he is a liberal so you know he is a moron.
“What next, a book is confusing because one might need a dictionary to define a word?”
Exactly. If I come across something in a book I don’t know and I’m forced to research to find answers then it’s a safe bet that what I came across was confusing to me. Right?
“No, no contradiction because I know what it means AND I have the information to back up my beliefs.”
It’s unbelievable how stubborn you can be over things. It would be like saying the value of a dollar bill is in the paper itself. You know better. You understand as well as Klein does that the document itself is just text on a page and the real meaning behind it is based on how the courts have interpreted those words over the years. That interpretation is based on a variety of things including the views of the founders.
“Have you read some of what this jackass has written?”
No, he could be a complete idiot for all I know. I don’t read many of the major liberal bloggers. I’m just going on the two or three lines you’ve cited here and taken out of context to attack him with. You have misrepresented his statements completely.
Adam- perhaps the Constitution is confusing to you because the “Context”, as it were, was and is the Declaration of Independence.
Adherence to “Nature’s God, and Nature’s Laws”, declared that these rights were inalienable, and thus were not able to be twisted by man for his own perfidious gains, but were constant and immutable.
That alone should be easy to grasp, but many an “Enlightened Liberal” just means he/she doesn’t need the special helmet.
Until they open their mouth, like Klein, they are hard to distinguish from real, thinking people.
At the heart of this whole subject is simply your biased view that liberals do not respect or understand the US Constitution. You think we haven’t read it and you think we don’t care about it.
You want me to believe you are somehow more knowledgeable about the subject that I am and yet you make statements like “abortion is not in the Constitution” to argue against the constitutionality of the issue. There is a disturbing lack of credibility there when I see things like that.
“and yet you make statements like “abortion is not in the Constitution” to argue against the constitutionality of the issue.’
So are you saying abortion is in the constitution?
The subject? No, it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is the right to privacy. Would you say then that we have no right to privacy? I doubt it.
I would simply expect those that pretend to know the US Constitution best would at least understand the role of the Supreme Court in applying the document to the cases that are not specifically dealt with in the text.
Secure in their persons means when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy…
You mean the fourth amendment has NOTHING to do with the expectations of privacy?
Oh, and the Supreme Court has been known to make an OOPS mistake before, and needed to correct itself. That time has come again on several fronts.
Abortion is not in the Constitution so a proper reading would indicate that it is an issue for the states to decide according to the Tenth Amendment. It is not that hard.
It can confuse you but the SCOTUS should have deferred tot he states because it is not in the Constitution.
Instead, you would rather take authority away from the states and give it to the federal government, an action that was clearly against what the Founders wanted.
I would simply expect those that pretend to know the US Constitution best would at least understand the role of the Supreme Court in applying the document to the cases that are not specifically dealt with in the text.
And they could do that by applying the Tenth Amendment. Those powers NOT delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So those of us pretending to know the Constitution are expecting too much to have it followed as in, if it is not there it belongs to the states or to the people?
Now who is it that has a hard time understanding the Constitution?
You don’t see how much your politics sways this opinion because you’ve convinced yourself you have a better grasp of the subject than those who actually have had to make these calls over the years. You think you know what the founders wanted better than the courts. You think you’ve read the document more carefully than most. I get it. That’s typical of your side in American politics and it’s nothing new.
Not at all. I am no Constitutional scholar but I have read what some of them have written.
Just because the courts have ruled one something does not make them correct. If it did we would not have reversals and differing opinions on the same subjects (including differing rulings).
See Adam- you really don’t have to be a “Constitutional Scholar” to understand the document at all- it IS written in fairly comprehensible English, and it is not convoluted, like lawyers like to read- perhaps that is why liberal pinko progressives hate the document so much- it doesn’t require a progressive “shaman” (Politician or activist judge) to “interpret” the language.
It really is very straightforward, and I especially like the part about the “enumerated” powers of the federal government, where those powers not SPECIFICIALLY given to the feds, are then the province of the respective states, or THE PEOPLE.
Is THAT too hard for you to understand? It might be, because it has apparently gone right over the little pinheads of many a lib-or else they are INTENTIONALLY subverting the Constitution, something they swore an oath not to do.
Those people would rightly be called traitors.
Standard Liberal: You’re stupid, and you need smart people (Liberals) to tell you how to comprehend English.
They parse words.