WashPost's Ezra Klein Laments 'Confusing' Nature of Our Old Constitution
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein appeared on MSNBC's Daily Rundown, Thursday, to mock the incoming Republicans for their stated fixation on the Constitution, asserting that the document is rather old and "confusing." MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell dismissed the GOP effort as "lip service" and wondered if it was a "gimmick."
After playing clips of Republicans claiming they would reject legislation that couldn't be justified constitutionally, Klein complained, "The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."
(It was actually written 223 years ago, which is a slightly "more than 100.") Klein didn't expound on which parts "confuse" him the most.
[MP3 audio here. See video below.]
O'Donnell condescendingly introduced the segment by suggesting that the Constitution "has been getting a whole lot of lip service." After alerting viewers that the Republicans would open Congress by reading the document's text, she skeptically wondered, "Is this a gimmick?"
To underscore her cynicism, O'Donnell played a snippet of incoming House Speaker John Boehner confusing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, wondering how "alarming" the slip was.
Finally, Klein concluded the segment by suggesting that politicians pledging to closely follow the Constitution simply don't mean it: "...It seems to me that these legal battles almost always break down along partisan lines and have very little to do with any sort of enduring understanding of the document."
This brought a prompt reply of "no doubt" from O'Donnell.
[H/T to @alwaysonoffense for the heads up.]
A transcript of the December 30 segment, which aired at 9:15am EST, follows:
SENATOR JIM DEMINT: Government has a solution to almost anything, because we don't pay any attention to the Constitution.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI: We believe that this act was passed tonight is an all-American act honoring our founders vows to the future.
SENATOR-ELECT MIKE LEE (R-UT): I will not vote for a single piece of legislation that I can't reconcile with the text and the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
NORAH O'DONNELL: Returning to the Constitution. That's what Republicans want to do in the new Congress. In the last year, the 223-year-old document has been getting a whole lot of lip service. So when the 112th Congress is sworn in next week, expect to hear a lot more about it, 'cause the Constitution is at center of three coming congressional battles and we love wonkery mixed up with politics. So, we're bringing our favorite wonk into the discussion to tee up some of the discussions in the weeks ahead, MSNBC contributor Ezra Wonk Klein is a staff writer for the Washington Post and joins us now. Ezra, good to see you. Thanks so much.
EZRA KLEIN: Good morning, Norah.
O'DONNELL: You heard all the different politicians talking about the Constitution. Well, this is what's going to happen. When Republicans take over next week, they're going to do something that apparently has never been done in the 221-year history of the House of Representatives. They are going to read the Constitution aloud. Is this a gimmick?
KLEIN: Yes, it's a gimmick. [Laughs] I mean, you can say two things about it. One, is that it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution is not that people don't read the text and think they're following. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done. So, I wouldn't expect to much coming out of this.
O'DONNELL: Except that, you know, the Tea Party has sort of used this to say, you know, we've got to follow the Constitution. I mean, they're constantly talking about it is a way of suggesting that our government has run amuck. And yet, the new Speaker of the House has actually confused himself what's in the Constitution. Let's listen to John Boehner from earlier this year.
JOHN BOEHNER: This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm going to stand here with our Founding Fathers who wrote in the preamble, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."
O'DONNELL: Ezra, is it alarming that the Speaker of the House confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence?
KLEIN: Oh, my. I don't find it particularly alarming. Obviously, it's rather embarrassing for him. There's another part we should note, which is the new rules require every bill name its constitutional authority in the bill's text and what I want to point out about that is that bills don't normally do that now. But, the one bill that did, the health care bill. In the individual mandate section it names the constitutional authority for the mandate. It names the constitutional justification the Democrats believe they have for it. And, of course, the Republicans don't think-
O'DONNELL: And what is that justification?
KLEIN: Necessary and Proper Clause, basically the normal reading of the Commerce Clause, at least in our era, is that in a sort of a unified nation like we are the government is fairly expansive powers [sic] to make sure interstate commerce works effectively. The health care market is largely federal, people move from state to state, get care in different states. In order to make it work you need to be able to pass federal laws about it. On some level, you basically do this with Medicare, right? Medicare is a federal law that has a ton of regulatory power over the health care sector. Now, because Republicans oppose the individual mandate, despite having come up with it in the early '90s, they're attacking it on constitutional grounds because they say couldn't be in Congress. But, it's just to make the point that simply saying this is constitutional has no weight with either side. Republicans haven't said, "Oh, well, you wrote it in the bill, so never mind. We're wrong. We're sorry we doubted you. You named what you thought was your justification for it already.
O'DONNELL: Well, I think here's here's what I think is the key question. Because, one of the things facing members of Congress and this President is the budget battle that is looming. And, we have a couple numbers here, because we're facing a $1.3 trillion fiscal 2010 deficit. $100 billion in promised Republican cuts. We've got this all on the screen and $4 trillion in cuts is what was prose proposed by the deficit panel to do that by 2020. Is there anything in the Constitution that talks about a balanced budget?
KLEIN: Nothing. And It's interesting, a lot of Tea Party members talked about adding a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And if they wanted it to be in there, they obviously would have obviously added it. Similarly, the filibuster keeps a lot of this from going through that's not in the Constitution. Again, there's a very instrumental relationship people have with the Constitution. This goes from sort of us on the ground here in politics to the Supreme Court, with Scalia, Thomas and other members that tend to be on different sides. State rights when it suits them, more federalist interpretations when it comes to things like marijuana regulation when that accords with their political beliefs. I've come to have a cynical view of jurisprudence on the Constitution, in that it seems to me that these legal battles almost always break down along partisan lines and have very little to do with any sort of enduring understanding of the document.
O'DONNELL: No doubt. Ezra Klein with the Washington Post. Good to see you and happy New Year.
— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Ezra Klein....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:41pm.
.....would probably say about The Bible, "the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."
He probably has no problem
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:28pm.
He probably has no problem with Shakespeare or Canterbury Tales. What an idiot.
So true, Rick.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 8:12pm.
I'll bet he doesn't have a problem with the Communist Manifesto either, and Mao's little red book is probably what he reads to his kids (if he has any) at night.
He has got to be a brother to
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:52pm.
He has got to be a brother to Joe Klein.
Off Camera
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:12pm.
O'Donnell to Klein: " What I have trouble understanding is why they named it after a ship?"
Well, Norah...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 10:05pm.
Are you referring to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? They both were, you know.
Jer
I know EXACTLY which parts confuse Klein...
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 12:50pm.
It's the parts where the Federal Government is limited to only certain enumerated delegated powers with which they can concern themself. He is likely especially confused by any of the sentences that begin with the words "Congress shall make no law..."
The Constitution is easily understood by middle school children with anywhere above a moderate grasp of the English language. Those who say otherwise are either admiting to their less than moderate grasp of middle school english, or are trying to obfuscate the issue for political purposes.
I wonder which Ezra Klein would be more willing to admit to, the former or the latter?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
That 10th Amendment sure is
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:30pm.
That 10th Amendment sure is confussing when you are talking about government. only to a lib though
[N]o one in their right mind questions that fact.
Submitted by Wildcatter1980 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 8:32pm.
Critical thinking confuses Klein and his acolytes on the liberal secular progressive lieft. Check out comment below from What the tea party wants from the Constitution by Ezra Klein:
The fact is, Tea Baggers wouldn't need "a statement from its sponsor outlining where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to enact such legislation" if the Tea Baggers would just go ahead and READ the U.S. Constitution themselves.
The only reason I can see why Tea Bagger would even think of making any such statement is because they have no idea what the U.S. Constitution actually says.
The U.S. Constitution empowers the U.S. Congress to do all they are doing, and no one in their right mind questions that fact.
Posted by: lindalovejones | December 30, 2010 12:25 PM
Compare this to this quote from Thomas Jefferson:
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
What more needs to be said than this commenter is a blind, mindless automaton.
--
If you want to know what liberal secular progressives are really doing, just listen to what they are accusing others of.
Recommended reading: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
What these buffoons don't understand
Submitted by Deskpilot on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:03pm.
is that The Constitution spells out the authority of the federal government. It's power is limited to what is spelled out, more in the form of what the government may NOT do.
Many clauses start with the word NO.
"The Constitution was,
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:08pm.
"The Constitution was, like, literally written over a dozen years ago and it's like all confusing and stuff!"
- Ezra Klein
If that's the case then doesn't that statement conflict with the concept of intellectualism that the Left has bestowed upon itself? Shouldn't this little document be easy to absorb by the very people who constantly brag about their great big brains? Why is it was knuckle-dragging Righties seem to have no problem understanding this document when we are so dumb and uninformed?
My only problem with the document is that the Founders designed the thing with the understanding that government empowers those in government and that human nature causes humans to exploit power. The Founders designed a government that distributed and limited power to make it as difficult as possible for the government to be abused yet in some places they barely scrape the surface on a topic while in others they add needless superfluous fluff. They should have known that power-hungry people would exploit those weaknesses.
For example, I believe the 1st Amendment protection of free speech deserves a little more than a fragment of a sentence. We've interpreted that speech posing a imminent threat to safety isn't protected (i.e. screaming FIRE in a crowded theater) though technically it is. This unwritten modification has allowed other blatantly unconstitutional things to pop up like the Fairness Doctrine and McCain/Feingold.
Another example: the 2nd Amendment has an unnecessary preamble that has done nothing but allow gun-grabbers a means of confusing the uninformed into believing the 2nd does not protect an individual's right to own a gun.
I do have a problem with things like that, but to claim it's too confusing to understand is a lie. Most Lefties are capable of understanding this document. They're just playing dumb because they don't like what it says.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Is this the new lefist meme
Submitted by ant on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:09pm.
Is this the new lefist meme to defend their burdensome government? "There is nothing about spending in the founding documents", maybe because they assumed people would still have common sense "over 100 years" in the future. Ya know there is nothing about "a wall of separation between church and state" either,honey.But I digress, these are the ideas they are going to conveniently ignore;
"For much of America's history when (Constitutional restraints on power) were honored, federal spending was on average only 3 percent of economic output, if we did the same thing today, federal spending would be about $450 billion. We'd not only have a balanced budget; we'd have a giant surplus..." - Daniel Mitchell at the CATO Institute
This one sounds like it could be directed right at Obama, but since it was written by an irrelevant "old dead white guy", he probably wouldn't understand it.;
"I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt, and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing, by every device, the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing." - Thomas Jefferson.
The problem
Submitted by dontheflyer on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:13pm.
The problem is the Constitution means whatever you can get 5 justices to agree to.
Another Related Problem
Submitted by JustAl on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:18pm.
Is seeing the words through all the stains left by FDR and courts after they wiped their a(**es with it.
Exactly correct
Submitted by KC Beach on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 9:52am.
I have said for yoears that the professional politicians wiped their collective butts with the Constitution and left a skidmark covering the 10th Amendment so they could pretend the 10th is not there.
Confusing
Submitted by jaywl on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:14pm.
I agree with with this guy Klein and his airhead friend Ms Giggle of MSNBC. I find parts of the old tomes confusing. Take that part about Do Process. I think they left out a word or two. Like "Do he Process this crap in the brain before it comes out of the mouth?" Or "Do follow Process established in the constitution." I wonder if Klein is confused about other old stuff, like the Emancipation Proclamation. Do we really need that and the 13th, 14th, and 15th admendments? Maybe he should go down to streets around Pres. Clinton's office and ask around. Of couse, he might have to explain what is in them, wouldn't he? That would be fun.
jaywl almost right
Submitted by neutron on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 8:33pm.
I think the hosting airhead is Ms O'Giggle. Klein seems inclined to recline on his intellectual prowess, which is apparently low.
New Hampshire Public Television's video on the US Constitution is for 7th grade and up. Other educational sites rate the reading level of the US Constitution as low as 6th grade. Rosen Publishing has it at a 5th grade reading level. That's probably too tough a challenge for Cline and O'Giggle.
Is it alarming
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:32pm.
O'DONNELL: Ezra, is it alarming that the Speaker of the House confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence?
Not really. What is alarming is the POTUS, as a candidate, confusing the total number of Islamic states with the number of states in the US.
How come you never really investigated that little slip-up, hmmm O'Donnell?
Norah O'Donnell discussing the Constitution. LOL.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:35pm.
She'd be better off teaming up with Contessa Brewer on promoting the homo-agenda.
Hmmm...
An excerpt from the new
Submitted by ant on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 1:37pm.
An excerpt from the new Constitution for Norah and friends;
The 1st dealy-o thingy;
Yo, these guys can't go sayin' what God you worship or let you set up a baby Jesus Christmas thing and stuff, and youse all can say whatever the F@@#*! you wanna say, and so can the TV people unless its those Bush-type racist peoples; and these guys can't stop y'all from gettin' together as pieces of yousselfs and too you can send an e-mail for these guys to dress-up again your thing you sad about.
Oh Mr. Klein,
Submitted by GFW on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 2:18pm.
you are indeed a moron!
Confusing? Only if English is a second language!
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 2:26pm.
The text is confusing simply because it's over 100 years old? Just how old is the English language?
Hay, Washington Post, the Constitution is written in the same language, the same text, as your newspaper! If the text of the Constitution is confusing, than so is the Washington Post!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
True and blue
Submitted by MoYo on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 2:32pm.
Spoken like a true moral relativist.
The problem that Liberals face.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 3:53pm.
Here's the problem that the liberals face: The text of the Constitution isn't confusing at all! If it were confusing, the liberals would have no problem trying to "interpret" it any way they wish, like they've been trying to do for decades now.
Take the First Amendment as an example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Just how is that confusing? Let's break it down and see just how "confusing" it is, shall we?
"Congress shall make no law..." Well, that's pretty straight forward.
"respecting..." That's rather straightforward too, isn't it? (in case you're confused, it means "in reference to" just as I learned in GRADE SCHOOL!)
"an establishment of..." another straightforward phrase which means, for those of you who are confused, "the creation of," as any dictionary would have explained to you.
"religion,... " Hay, don't lie to us! You have absolutely NO confusion as to what that term means! After all, you denigrate people for their Christian beliefs every day.
"or prohibiting..." You can't get much more straightforward than that! What part of "prohibiting" don't you understand, the fact that it means that it's not allowed?
"the free expression thereof;" What part of that is confusing to you, the use of "thereof?" Hay, consult a dictionary!
"or abridging the freedom..." Ok, I can see how that may be confusing to you. After all, that's an "archaic" term that has no meaning in an idealism that thrives on abridging personal freedoms and identities in favor of the collective (as long as the freedom being abridged isn't yours. Isn't that right, gay members of the military?) But that's not a case of misinterpreting a term. It's a case of being ideologically opposed to the concept.
"of speech..." Yea, you all know what that means, don't try to deny it. After all, you claimed that Bush was trying monitor all of your Constitutionally protected speech, especially "private" speech, illegally via the Patriot Act.
"or of the Press;" Yea, like the "journalists" don't know what that means and don't write thousand word editorials explaining to us all just how the freedom of th press is being threatened by such things as the Espionage Act or the Patriot Act! Don't lie to me!
"or the right..." Dang, there's that pesky little "individuality" aspect creeping into the text again!
"of the people..." FINALLY, a reference to the collective! WE ALL understand that fully, correct?
"peaceably to assemble," Ok, you understand that. You may not actually assemble peaceful when "protesting," but at least you understand what it means. You must, for you do it just about every time Republicans (or Conservatives in general) gather together any place in America, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
"and to petition..." You all understand that one too, don't deny it! After all, you spend a year each election cycle gathering signatures for issue advocacy petitions, correct?
"the government..." Yea, like you don't know what that is!
"for a redress of..." Well, other than cross-dressers, I don't of anyone who's confused about the meaning of that term. But, when in doubt, consult a dictionary.
'grievances." You are the party of grievances! Don't even TRY to claim that you don't understand that term!
Ok, Liberals, there's the break down of just the First Amendment. Please, tell me, just what do you find confusing about any of it? It can't be the meaning of those "archaic" terms, so it must be the "old style" punctuation that is confusing you.
Be honest, liberals, the problem isn't that the text of the Constitution is too confusing. The problem is that it isn't confusing enough to the general population for you to "interpret" it any way you wish without public backlash.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Good evening Cobra
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:05pm.
You are right about everything, but what do you expect from wackos who can't understand the meaning of the word is?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Actually, they don't know what it means, or -
Submitted by mzk1 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:57pm.
Why do journalists carry around cards saying press, as if the journalist is a piece of machinery?
Freedom of the Press means you can print what you want (as long as it's not treasonous, libelous, obscene, someone's property....).
It does NOT mean -
1. That the governemnt has to tell you anything. (You are free to write scathing editorials insisting the government tell you, of course.)
2. That you can invade people's private property (Oliver North, anyone?) or harrass anyone. The latter MAY come under some of the other clauses.
3. That a person called a "reporter" or an object registered with the post office as a "newspaper" has any rights that us common peons do not have. Slander for me is slander for you. As is treason, accessory to a crime, et. al. ...... (Same goes for lawyers.)
The know what it means...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:15pm.
The journalists knows what "freedom of the press" means. They just don't want US to know. That kind of freedom would tend to bring competition to the "news" services, and journalists, being HIGHLY competitive, want to eliminate that competition as much as possible.
I mean, really, how DARE the common man, sitting in his pajamas in front of that internet connected pc, even TRY to compete with all those liberal arts educated journalists in informing the public of what is important to know and understand! That is FAR too much responsibility to be given freely to just anyone, you know?
Here's my argument on that:
Journalist: I went to college to learn journalism!
Me: Well, I leaned to write in the first few years of grade school. What took YOU so long?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Well, of course!
Submitted by Morganfrost on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 3:24pm.
It's totally confusing! Plus, it's written in this really whack handwriting where all the Fs look like Ss (or is it the other way around?). It's pretty obvious that you can't understand something like that. In any case, it's hard to imagine how the cultural relativism diligently taught in our schools could ever help us to understand a document written by a homogeneous group of non-diverse, white, European, males, none of whom were minorities.
Finally, what's the point of a document that constrains the ability of our leaders to do whatever they think is right for us? Wouldn't that kind of document just leave us with a government that was so fettered and constrained that it would hardly be able to effectively run our lives for us? Epic fail, man.
The Constitution is confusing!
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:17pm.
"Plus, it's written in this really whack handwriting where all the Fs look like Ss (or is it the other way around?)."
Don't u just h8 WAFU the txt of the Constitution is? UG2BK that ppl can understand the Constitution. It sux 2 read it. WAFM this country has become tnk to the archaic Constitution. Every1 nos the Constitution is a WIP. KWIM?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The Constitution Made Easy
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:21pm.
Clever way to go making your point! I bet the young Mr. Klein can easily comprehend text and tweet messages that are written in their own special code language. So here's an idea! Maybe the Constitution could be translated into this language for the youngsters. It could be called "The Constitution Made Easy for Millennials." Maybe there could even be an app for it!
W3 th3 p33ps
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 7:22pm.
W3 th3 p33ps 0f the USA 1n 0rd3r 2 4m a m0r3 pf3ct un10n...
Yea, that would make it far less confusing. <3
Hat tip to my daughter for helping me to correct my tweet grammar.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
All Related
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:02pm.
I really need to get with the program! Whenever I tweet, I always play around with the words so I don't NEED to abbreviate! And when I text, it's proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation all the way! Well, maybe that's all related to my ability to understand the Constitution!
Missing the point, isn't he?
Submitted by mzk1 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 3:56pm.
Wait a minute! He makes a point that the health care bill gives its constitutional justification.
But the administration has realized that it is hard to justify under what the bill says and is now trying to justify the mandate under the revenue portion instead of the commerce clause.
So their including the justification turned out to be less than meaningful.
The Constitution...
Submitted by vote24 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:03pm.
Live free under it. Or die trying to destroy it. Those are your actual choices libs.
I'm so confused.......
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:03pm.
Sorry that this airhead and airheadette are "Confused" by the Constitution. Don't they realize that the Constitution gives them the right to be stupid? Obama has stated that he dislikes the constitution because it does not say what government can DO to the people. Fascism, anyone? Let's ban all "Confusing" writings and books. The Theory of Relativity.....now THAT'S confusing. Get rid of it! As a matter of fact, to keep things simple, lets burn all writings and books written over 100 years ago. Farenheit 451, anyone? Guaranteed, the MSM will push the "Confusing" button anytime an evil Republican mentions the Constitution. Reading the Constitution in the House? Excellent idea. Test all bills for Constutionality? Another excellent idea. I'm sure Klein and O'Donnell would have no problem with the House quoting Sharia law.........These two pieces of pond scum are beyond shameful in their simpering arrogance!
Pond scum?
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:35pm.
You are being way too kind. I was thinking more of toe jam.
Funny because.......
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:09pm.
.......before I read your post I was thinking what a "little snot" Klein is!
How dare you!
Submitted by mzk1 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:47pm.
How dare you accuse our president of fascism?
Fascism is an economic system whereby the economy is run by private corporations that take their orders from the government. While the Obama administration runs the economy.... through.... um, well, never mind... :-)
The physics of a can opener would confuse Ezra Klein
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:03pm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Why is it........
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:05pm.
Why is it that all male "Reporters" for the Washington Post talk funny? Just wondering.
WAPO will name Klein as its
Submitted by celator on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:08pm.
WAPO will name Klein as its new Supreme Court reporter, watch and see. He's got the right lefty attitude, is easily confused and has that lost-in-the-matrix facial look.
There is one puzzling aspect surrounding the Constitution
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:14pm.
...and that is why is it we no-longer enforce it?
If we did, little lord Barry Hussein Soetero Obama would have been out of office some time ago, and most of his cronies, starting with Eric Holder, Big Sis, and that FCC speech NAZI from Hell, would now be riding a bench in a federal pokey where they belong.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
EZRA = George Soros watercarrier
Submitted by djwolf12 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:15pm.
Hey Ezra, what part of WE THE PEOPLE do you not understand? It doesn't say US THE GOVERNMENT
Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa. Somebody check their math.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:17pm.
The Bicentennial was over 50 years ago and that is the celebration of 4 millennia. At least I think, I get confused when I put on a day drunk.
Another day drunk?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:22pm.
Man, you really need to skip those daily Washington Post editorial meetings.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Somehow I doubt Ezra Klein
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:46pm.
Somehow I doubt Ezra Klein would find Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto 'confusing' although they were written more than 100 years ago. Wonder why that would be?
Once again liberals have done their best to undermine the authority of the US Government and Constitution, and then blame the conservatives for upholding precedent.
No legal authority
Submitted by Janelasdedeus on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 4:54pm.
This callow youth was the unfortunate victim of having attended the University of California at Santa Cruz... where there were no grades at the time. What's puzzling is how he has ever attained any prominence whatsoever, based on a track record of zero achievements? Of course he would support a President who was awarded a Nobel merely for his "potential."
Ezra and the Constitution
Submitted by NVRAT on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:15pm.
What is the matter Ezra are the words to complicated for you to understand or they do not match up to Liberal thinking? I supect that its the latter. When the constitution was written it encompassed the thinking of all time in the past, current, and into the future. As usual, people like yourself and the other Liberal Lemmings have a hard time understanding real life, its meaning and situtations.To help you a little it was written to protect free people from tyrants such as yourself and your pantied followers.
Enjoy your tiney little world you time warped idiot.
*"MessNBC's Daily Rundown"...
Submitted by OxyCon on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:19pm.
MessNBC's Daily Rundown,,,of America, what it stands for, it's values and ideals.
*fixed
If the text of the
Submitted by tampamom25 on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:30pm.
If the text of the Constitution is confusing, it's because people don't know how to think anymore. They can't process thought rationally and come to a conclusion. They can't read information and understand what it means by thinking it through. Our country's history has been so revised that people think Thanksgiving was to thank the Indians for giving us corn, and that we have no basis in Christianity. Very few people know that schools were established to teach children how to read so they could read the Bible for themselves. We get our information in five second sound bites, and if we like it, we repeat it. People think that shows like Hard Copy and Entertainment Tonight are news shows. Our children are taught more in school about tolerating alternative lifestyles and loving themselves than they are about literature or mathematics. When people can't process thought, they look to others to make decisions for them and that's when we start to lose our freedoms. The Constitution should be required reading in schools, as should The Federalist Papers. The dumbing down of our population has been very successful.....
Well put.
Submitted by xraynova on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:33pm.
Well put.
confusing?
Submitted by goldbough on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:45pm.
I'll tell you what's confusing. The tax code, numerous regulations, why Congress is out of their minds, etc. Also, the Constitution was written much longer than "100 years ago." Try "more than 200 years ago."
My God. These bobble heads go
Submitted by johnsonl on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:02pm.
My God. These bobble heads go to an actual jouralism school! To learn what? How to "journal"? And these elitist idiot asses look down on US?? It's true, ya know. You can't argue with an idiot.
Wonder how Klein feels about the Torah?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:55pm.
Is the text of the Torah "...confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."
Klein
Submitted by JC on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 7:15pm.
I would suggest that Klein report on and give his analysis of sharia law, after being dropped into a Taliban held Af/Pak area. Isn't sharia "100 years old", also?
O'Donnell could go with the boy and give her perspective, from a woman's point of view.
Now there you go!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 7:20pm.
Excellent idea!
If you dont have the skills,
Submitted by Edhenry on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 7:25pm.
If you dont have the skills, it is confusing.
"It's like all old and
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 7:26pm.
"It's like all old and stuff! It's even older than my collectors' first edition Us Weekly. I don't know about you boys, but I'm a girl and I hate reading all those words and junk without pictures. Wait, did I just say I was a girl? I'm a boy! I guess it just doesn't matter when you're a flaming lefty like me. OMG! Did you see what Lindsey Lohan did yesterday?"
- Ezra Klein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
As always, Iowahawk nails
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 7:33pm.
As always, Iowahawk nails this one.
(Put your drink down...)
Yep
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 7:46pm.
Where would we be without Wiki or Law and Order?
Yes, the Consitution gets in
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 8:06pm.
Yes, the Consitution gets in the way of a socialist utopia....poor baby.
Just like it was designed too
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 8:20pm.
Someone should finally add!
Does this mean we can
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 8:49pm.
Does this mean we can disregard all that "cr@p" like the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment and all the other safeguards that protect against women, minorities, voting rights, etc? Because if that is true, there might be a problem in having Obama has President.
After all, Ezra, it is just a silly, old piece of paper. Hmm, and all that stuff like the Establishment Clause must be B.S. too then, right Ezra? Come to think of it Ezra, that 1st Amendment might be void too, right?
Like text language, like?
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 8:53pm.
Perhaps Ezra has such profound ADHD that he cannot understand anything beyond the 140 character limit.
He is fairly young. A part
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:07pm.
He is fairly young. A part of that generation where if the kid couldn't handle something, eliminate the "something". Since some people can't understand the Constitution we should just write another one. Or at least that what Ezra thinks we should do.
You mean that English is no longer required?
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 11:38pm.
Apparently the state and federal education authorities no longer require fluency in English as a requisite for graduation from one grade level to another.
I don't care if Ezra is 18 years old or 118 years old. The US constitution is remarkably clear on its intent, along with the contemporary writing of its authors and those who disagreed with some of its principles.
It is a document which has endured far longer than most other basic, organic laws which define governments around the world.
If Ezra Klein is not intelligent enough to figure out what the language means, perhaps he should revert to a vocational area more suited to his limited capabilities, e.g. honest, actual work involving something other than the use of language more complex than an "exit" sign.
Finally!
Submitted by NC Boy on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:11pm.
A replacement for Rick Sanchez!
I wonder if he knows the 1st
Submitted by jay davis on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 9:51pm.
I wonder if he knows the 1st Amendment protects his right to go on the air and be an idiot.
" The Daily Rundown " is like
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 11:03pm.
" The Daily Rundown " is like watching " Pee - wee's Playhouse " only Pee - wee featured the word of the day and they do ( White House ) soup of the day.
Barack_Must_Go.....
The thoroughly unambiguous US Constitution...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 12:30am.
It is rather ironic that the same ideological factions who have tied themselves in intellectual knots for the past three years wrestling with constitutional arcania such as the definition and implication of the phrase"natural born citizen" now insist the entire text of the document is absolutely crystal clear.
Jer
And as usual
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 12:51am.
Your chance at equivalence are as lame as ever.
ideological factions
tied themselves in intellectual knots
Like who Jer? You should be able to name all 3 of em. Good grief. Libs=deceit
Oh, okay, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 2:35am.
Just you. You're the only one who comes to mind.
Jer
I figured as much
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 12:52pm.
Congrats
Chicken, meet egg
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 1:05pm.
I wonder if the Slimes ever pondered the subject?
And if they did, it was only to ridicule the Right, kinda like you Jer
If the Courrts did not make it a moving target no problems!
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 3:53am.
The phrase "natural born citizen" is from the fourteenth amendment and was understood perfectly not to cover the childrin of non-citizens and diplomats until 1982.
In 1982 one of the nuttier of the Supreme Court inserted a footnote, not even voted on by the other Judges, into a decision to muddy the clear legal meaning of the words. In the last twenty-eight years since then we have been trying to get clarity back over the objections of lawyers.
Well, Avitar...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 4:30am.
do you recall the interminable forums involving Lord Elican, Unsane, NL207, Willis_Leon_Johnson and a host of others regarding the phrase and its impact on the candidacies of McCain and later Obama?
Arguments were passionate and well-reasoned...but ultimate clarity was not a hallmark.
Jer
That's not due to ambiguity of the Constitution, Jer.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 1:12pm.
"Arguments were passionate and well-reasoned...but ultimate clarity was not a hallmark."
That's not due to ambiguity of the Constitution, Jer. That's due to the passions of politics and ideology.
Let's be realist here. Thanks to ideology, people have a tendency to argue over just about everything. It's the exact same thing that Kline is doing. He's trying to claim that the Constitution is ambiguous (due to its age, I guess, as if that's a relevant factor) and, therefor, difficult to understand, all because of his political ideology.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
My argument is realistic,
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 2:42pm.
My argument is realistic, Cobra, although I agree that ideology plays an important role in the persistent clash over the meaning and interpretation of Constitutional words and phrases. I doubt you can find more than a tiny handful of Constitutional scholars from either end of the spectrum who would suggest there is no legitimate "confusion" which can arise from or be associated with the implications of the term "natural born citizen". And even though that is a prominent example of textual and contextual ambiguity, it is hardly the only one.
Jer
Crawfishing
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 1:26pm.
Jer suggested it was far broader scope then the local assembly here at NB's above.
Fact is, the libtards uses the topic far more then the Right, they use it to ridicule the Right, like Jer here. A birther is NOT an endearing term
Another fact is, the people have the right to know the folks who lead them, and all doubt should be satisfied. Obama and his cronies have side stepped every attempt at information gathering for this administration they can possibly do, some of it demonstratively underhanded.
I am a little tired of petty equivalency, I am more concerned what the hell is going to be done about it. Or, is there still someone, Jer perhaps, who thinks we can or will continue under this kinda rule, paying these kinds of bills?
Boudin, considering your
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 2:47pm.
Boudin, considering your domicile, I would think you should have a slightly better grasp of "crawfishing". And your determined, constant efforts to find equivalency arguments where none exist are getting old.
Jer
Another stunning
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 2:53pm.
Rebuttal, color me floored.
It's not ironic, Jer.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 1:04pm.
It's not ironic, Jer, it's inevitable. That's what happens when people use ideology to interpret the written word.
We all know what the Constitution means by "natural born citizen, but some people, unhappy with what the Constitution say, tries to interpret it to their own means. That tendency isn't restricted to just one end of the political spectrum, you know.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
typical
Submitted by malthus on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 1:13am.
A common technique of Democrat subversion is to talk about an idea, no matter how bizzare, knowing that as it generates conversation it will also generate acceptance.
The Constitution is our Covenant with Government, that should be non-negotiable.
It's the proverbial nose of
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 2:52am.
It's the proverbial nose of the camel under the proverbial tent.
Ezra Klein needs to be put with the Federalist Papers.
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 3:35am.
I know that literacy tests for voting are not allowed because of their history of abuse but could the FCC require minimum aptitude tests for Broadcasters? It would be good if at least Ezra Klein's boss was qualified to read the Constitution and maybe some of the supporting background material too.
The "Federalist Papers" newspaper articles explaining how the Constitution would work that Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote would be a good start and then Thomas Jefferson's "Anti-Federalist Papers" about what could go wrong with activist judges should be mandatory for "reporters."
Klein's Confusion On the Constitution...
Submitted by txradioguy on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 5:22am.
Begins somewhere around "We the people" gets worse when he reads "Congress shall pass no law" and ends with his complete lack of comprehension somewhere around the final words in the 27th Amendment.
What we need
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 10:23am.
is group of journalist to meet in secret and write the same thing so everybody can understand the confusing Constitution. wait a minute Ezra did that with the Journolist. How is this guy on the government paid for/ run MSNBC ( GE) network.
what's the cut off?
Submitted by rowdygirl on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 10:58am.
I wonder how far back he's willing to go? Does he read ANYTHING written more than say, 25 years ago? If it's confusing and difficult to understand because it was written so long ago, that would cover alot of ground. He should probably lead some sort of mission to burn everything written before he was born.. that way he won't get "confused" with old stuff.
What a dope.
Tam
Yep, I guess we could always
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 12:18am.
Yep, I guess we could always structure our government model on some interpretation of Harry Potter books. That seems more up Ezra Klein's alley.
Lip service? Whorah, if
Submitted by east tennessee john on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 12:44pm.
Lip service? Whorah, if anyone should be talking about "lip service", given her stellar intwelluctual insights.
"No binding power"
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 12/31/2010 - 3:24pm.
When Klein begins his remarks he states "It has no binding power on anything." (about 25 seconds into the video)
I realize he's commenting on Republicans reading the Constitution, but then again, was this some subconcious revelation on how he feels about the Constitution as a whole?
I'm only half kidding.
liberal confusion
Submitted by dieselpop1 on Sat, 01/01/2011 - 2:13pm.
Liberals are slways "confused" by our founding documents when they don't say what they want to hear.