Time Reporter Betrays Constitutional Ignorance in Bemoaning GOP 'Cult of the Constitution'
As the House of Representatives read the Constitution aloud on the chamber floor Wednesday, the uproar from the left came as a bit of a surprise. Less surprising, perhaps, was that a number of the whiners don't actually understand the document they claim the GOP sullied with political stunts.
No, I'm not talking about Ezra "the text is confusing" Klein. The latest lefty to demonstrate his constitutional ignorance, Time Magazine's Washington correspondent Alex Altman, decried the "Cult of the Constitution" in a headline yesterday.
Altman began by lamenting the decision to not read parts of the Constitution that, well, are no longer parts of the Constitution. "The bipartisan recitation omitted several critical passages," he noted, "including the three-fifths compromise."
But the three-fifths provision and all the passages omitted from the reading are, unlike everything that remains, irrelevant to the 112th Congress. The existing Constitution governs the legislature, and provisions scrubbed from the document, obviously, do not.
And that seems to be where the fundamental misunderstanding occurs. Altman does not seem to realize that the Constitution is not a list of suggestions. It's not a nice-sounding essay that lists our founding principles. It's not just "a remarkable document…worthy of veneration [and] study," as he dubs it. It is quite simply the law, and it dictates the limits of Congress's power.
So if the point is to remind Congress of its proper limits, why on earth would the House recite passages that no longer exist? It wouldn't, of course.
Since Altman either doesn't understand that fact or simply didn't think it worth a mention (despite it being the entire basis for reciting the document aloud), it's hardly surprising that he also does not fully comprehend the amendment process.
Speaking of the founders, Altman wrote: "Despite their genius, the framers were fallible," and the document they produced was not perfect. He went on to quip that "the notion that our governing document should never evolve has always struck me as mildly insane."
When liberals want to bash originalists, that is their go-to straw man: changing times demand a changing constitution, and any claim that the Constitution is inviolable and absolute leaves no room for adaptation and change. Therefore we have to circumvent the Constitution (the law) to keep it up-to-date and the federal government functional.
That is of course untrue and misleading. The Constitution has a built-in mechanism for change: it's called the amendment process and it's been used 27 times since the document's ratification.
Altman characterized originalism - apparently synonymous with his "Cult of the Constitution" - as the belief that "there will never be agreement about how [the Constitution] should evolve, and because it's too messy to make those determinations, it must stay static."
That is a complete distortion of the originalist position. Lawmakers can stay well within the bounds of constitutional law AND change it to adapt to circumstance. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As for what originalism does hold, I'll let Chuck Krauthammer explain:
Call it constitutionalism. In essence, constitutionalism is the intellectual counterpart and spiritual progeny of the "originalism" movement in jurisprudence. Judicial "originalists" (led by Antonin Scalia and other notable conservative jurists) insist that legal interpretation be bound by the text of the Constitution as understood by those who wrote it and their contemporaries. Originalism has grown to become the major challenger to the liberal "living Constitution" school, under which high courts are channelers of the spirit of the age, free to create new constitutional principles accordingly.
ad_icon
What originalism is to jurisprudence, constitutionalism is to governance: a call for restraint rooted in constitutional text. Constitutionalism as a political philosophy represents a reformed, self-regulating conservatism that bases its call for minimalist government - for reining in the willfulness of presidents and legislatures - in the words and meaning of the Constitution.
Hence that highly symbolic moment on Thursday when the 112th House of Representatives opened with a reading of the Constitution. Remarkably, this had never been done before - perhaps because it had never been so needed. The reading reflected the feeling, expressed powerfully in the last election, that we had moved far, especially the past two years, from a government constitutionally limited by its enumerated powers to a government constrained only by its perception of social need.
Altman ends his piece quoting - who else? - Thomas Jefferson:
Meanwhile, here's Thomas Jefferson weighing in: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment...But I know also, that 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 disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
These, almost as much as any the framers gave us, are words worth remembering.
Perhaps we might also remember the words of the Constitution itself - you know, the ones the House was reading aloud the other day. The reading was a calculated reaction to a perception of unconstitutional government. Step one: remind Congress of its legal constraints.
Besides, Altman needs to brush up on his ConLaw.
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I was arguing with a man
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:40pm.
I was arguing with a man recently and he used the "old document written by a Bunch of dead men" argument. If I was quicker on my feet I should have come back with yeah all laws written by dead guys should be ignored; like the laws on murder.
The problem with exposing liberal media bias....
Submitted by falcon on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:42pm.
...is that it's a never-ending battle. The other problem is that nearly all news outlets (at least of the mainstream variety) are unabashedly liberal.
So to see a piece pulled from Time magazine is like being told the sky is blue.
Before anyone begins to bash on me for this, let me say NewsBusters performs a valuable service, and that I am quite simply sick and tired of the media not living up to its responsibilities to provide viewers, listeners, and readers with the facts of a story, allowing us to make up our own minds. (And when I say "facts," I mean all the facts, not just the ones that support the reporter's thesis.)
Reports like this one simply reiterate the fact that no one who acts as a reporter in the mainstream media is to be trusted, and it is frustrating to me that more readers, listeners, and viewers don't begin tuning these people out, voting with their feet and wallets and moving to sources of news that are more balanced and factual.
I was a reporter once. I believed in the "five Ws and H" (who, what, where, when, why and how). Of all people, Clark Kent was my journalistic hero (possibly because his alter-ego stood for "truth, justice, and the American way"), and that's what I believed.
For people like Alex Altman to insult the majority of Americans by inferring that the Constitution was outdated and irrelevant to today's society angers me greatly, much as those who claim the Bible is not relevant to today's issues.
These people need to get the he** out of the way and let saner minds prevail, because the mental disease that is "progressivism" will claim us all if left unchecked. And I'm ready to go to battle over it (almost punched one guy the other day because of his silly liberal parroting).
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
Constitutional ignorance
Submitted by sarge329 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:50pm.
Far be it from me to defend a liberal, or worse, a moderate. I simply wish to make a point. Many Americans, including myself, have been ignorant of the Constitution. I'm neither happy nor proud about that, so I got a pocket Constitution from the Heritage Foundation. I read it quite often. It's hard to believe that men over 200 years ago, some considered ignorant by today's liberal standards, could have crafted a document that lays out the law in such a succinct, straightforward, yet eloquent manner. If the new Congress follows these rules, we just MIGHT have a chance at turning this country around.
Interesting if you read it from a modern perspective....
Submitted by mzk1 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 2:35pm.
There is nothing in there about sex (until, ironically, the 14th amendment), nothing about race (slavery yes, with euphemisms) or religion - except several clauses about religious freedom IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF (before the Bill or Rights).
The Framers may have been
Submitted by Bruzilla on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:55pm.
The Framers may have been old, and are certainly now dead, but they were also some brilliant people. Watching Al Gore fall into a trap that had been set by these men over 200 years ago proves that out. The Founders identified the requirement for an Electoral College because they feared some politician would focus on the needs of the most populated areas instead of focusing on all the states when running for President, and sure enough... Al Gore tried to win office by campaigning in the big cities and avoiding the flyover country. And just as the Founders intended, his efforts failed.
It's amazing how so many people feel that today's world is so much more enlightened and wiser, yet we keep seeing time and again that not much has changed between the late 1700s and now.
Here you go.....
Submitted by tampamom25 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:56pm.
"And it dictates the limits of Congress's power" That's the sentence that really describes what the left is all up in arms about. They don't recognize that they have ANY limits in their power, they would prefer that WE THE PEOPLE not know that there are limits, and it offends them mightily to think that The Constitution actually does limit their power. Sadly, most people today don't understand what The Constitution actually says, what it does for us as people, and how it absolutely limits the power of the federal government, and that's one of our biggest problems.
Might be just me, but I think
Submitted by SonnyPalermo on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:59pm.
Might be just me, but I think the reason liberals are upset about the three-fifths section being left out is because they wanted it read so they could point their fingers and yell RACISTS!
And on a related matter....
Submitted by miss911ninja on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 2:10pm.
It's so typically hypocritical of lefties to scorn this embracing of the Constitution. They say it doesn't deserve all the attention because it represents a past era. Using their own logic, shouldn't they "get over" slavery, instead of bringing it up constantly? Prior to this recent focus on the Constitution, we heard about slavery WAY more than we ever heard about the Constitution!
HYPOCRITES!
and ironically..
Submitted by mzk1 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 2:38pm.
The purpose of the 3/5s was to propitiate the OPPONENTS of slavery - the Southern states wanted full representation, so their non-voting slaves would give them more seats.
Poverty Pimps
Submitted by miss911ninja on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 3:17pm.
It's amazing how the poverty pimps and race baiters keep referring to the "3/5ths" compromise as if meant that blacks were not considered to be full human beings. Sad thing is, most of these ignorant fools probably don't understand the real reason for it. Al Sharpton is a case in point.
Ahhhhhhh, the lovely and
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 3:36pm.
Ahhhhhhh, the lovely and eloquent miss Ninjie-Poo..........talking in 'code language' again!!! Why don't you just come right out and tell us what you REALLY think???
Gotta go check the surf.....................
What I really think, killa......
Submitted by miss911ninja on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 6:49pm.
.....is that the talking heads who are interviewing Sharpton (or whoever) when he trots out the tedious "3/5ths" canard are ALSO ignorant fools! Because I don't recall anyone ever correcting Sharpton by providing the correct historical background.
You mean Sharpton (and
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 8:39pm.
You mean Sharpton (and others) is a 'race pimp'??? Who knew??? I mean, he's trying to get Rush Limbaugh off the radio, right???? And whatever gave you the idea that any of these 'talking assho**s' actually KNOW what they're talking about??? They're catering to masses (shrinking masses, it appears) of ignorant, misinformed viewers..............so they don't have to worry too much about being accurate, and anyway, who CARES about 'historical background' or 'truth' or anything like that??? It's all about the progaganda and the agenda..........
No, it is not just you.
Submitted by needle on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 2:59pm.
People who insist on reading the constitution with the 3/5th clauses in it are typically those who want fan and fuel racial disharmony in this country. We as a nation put that behind us well over a century ago. The adults realize it is time to grow up and move on.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
And Bruzilla, you can't
Submitted by SonnyPalermo on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 1:01pm.
And Bruzilla, "you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
Perhaps..
Submitted by Unsilent_Minority on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 2:15pm.
...Obama's power comes from a moistened bint lobbing a scimitar at him. And all this time I thought we were an autonomous collective. And perhaps we really are an anarchosyndicalist commune!
Can anyone see the way the
Submitted by Slyrr on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 1:54pm.
Can anyone see the way the left is trending and doubt that another civil war is brewing?
They hate religion and those who practice it - they want to enact laws that force churches to change their doctrine under the guise that it's a 'hate crime' to say things like gay marriage are wrong. They rail and scream against it, mock those who are religious, and denounce them as fools living in the past. But that darn Constituion and it's freedom of religion stops the left from making chruches illegal! So....
They hate the Constitution and those who wish to adhere to/stay close to its precepts because it threatens their stempede to tyranny and dictatorial power. They rail and scream against it, mock those who cite or read it, and denounce them as fools living in the past.
And they're getting louder and meaner and angrier with each passing day. They're getting more and more brazen in their expressed desire to destroy the Constitution. They're going to keep getting madder and madder and feeling more and more threatened by the Constituion, and someday, some of them are going to get so mad they'll band together and take up arms if they have to to put it down.
And when that happens, look out. If they have their way, who would stand up and stop them from declaring conservatives and churches illegal - and saying that those who believe in them must be imprisoned 'for the public good'?
Sound alarmist? Just wait. The left loves saying that the Right is angry and bitter and violent. But the Right is nothing - nothing I say - compared to how angry, and vicious and voilent those on the left can be. Who was it who knocked down black conservatives, kicked them and took their signs? Who was it who attacked senior citizens at Tea Party rallies and bit off their fingers? Who was it who stationed armed thugs outside voting locations, thumping nightsticks in their hands if anyone looked too conservative? Who was it who said to his supporters to 'argue and get in everyone's face'? Who was it who told them to 'bring guns to a knife fight'? Who was it who said 'we have our boot on their necks'? Who spends every news broadcast mocking and attacking those they disagree with across every major TV network, movies, books, magazines and website? Who is it who believes that if they can just abort enough fetuses, puree them and bathe in their juice that it will somehow make them immortal?
And sooner or later, it'll reach a point where they just can't get any madder. That's when wars break out. Watch and pray people - watch and pray.
Ezra only understands the "Cliff's Notes" version of...
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 2:13pm.
...anything. This is a standard ruse of the politically reliable liberals who don't bother checking their facts when they can repeat the same nonsense over and over until they are unable to recognize anything but the hollow rhetoric.
Altman should also know that
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 2:21pm.
Altman should also know that Jefferson would be one of the first to object to his idea of a 'living document'. An anti-federalist, he strongly opposed any type of non-literal reading of the text, to the point that he even opposed the United States government acquiring territory by treaty (until he violated his own principles once in office, of course, with the Louisiana purchase).
Thomas Jefferson also said...
Submitted by mrt721 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 2:22pm.
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
And,
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
More here
That is their problem they do not want it
Submitted by JJ OKC on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 2:24pm.
When I took legal courses in school getting my degrees each law textbook I had contained a copy of the constiution to show that was the supreme law of the land. liberals do not want to be "constrained" by it.
It should be sounded all across the land that all the new laws liberals want can be added by ammendent, but they know the nation would not stand for it, so they try the backdoor "courts" and hope we do not notice.
The new congress is doing the right thing and I hope they keep rolling it all back and show how this country should be run.
Well, we've been called 'the
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 3:39pm.
Well, we've been called 'the enemy', and 'more dangerous than Islamic terrorists', and 'Nazis', as well as intolerant, bigoted, homophobic, anti-Mooooooooooooooooooslem, racist, bla bla bla..........and we've been 'represented' by the 'culture of corruption'................ and we've been told to 'get in the back'............ so it doesn't suprise me one bit to now know that I, and we, are part of the 'cult of the Constitution'!!!!