Iowahawk does Ezra Klein

| December 30, 2010

ROS sent us this video of Washington Post’s Ezra Klein who claims the Constitution is irrelevant because it was written “more than a hundred years ago”;

Well, I’ve been thinking what I could write about this little bit of ignorance, then I discover from Ace of Spades that Iowahawk beat me to it.

Category: Liberals suck

Comments (35)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Perspectives | December 31, 2010
  1. Old Trooper says:

    Unfortunately, there are those that think the Constitution is outdated, a living document, etc. Yet, those same people are the first to run and hide behind the 1st Amendment when it suits their needs.

  2. NotSoOldMarine says:

    That’s not what he said at all.

  3. Doc Bailey says:

    So the litmus test for the importance of any document is its age? Well then out goes Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare Aristotle and Plato, and also Ernest Hemmingway and Mark Twain. what a crock of shit. If you actually READ the damn document its not as ambiguous as everyone seems to think.

  4. John says:

    The Bible?

  5. streetsweeper says:

    In case anyone has a real short memory which it appears, is the case:

  6. Instinct says:

    Worst part is that this jackass is legally allowed to vote by the same Constitution that he says is incomprehensible

  7. Doc Bailey says:

    I think this is a prime example of civics failing in school

  8. NotSoOldMarine says:

    Seriously, did anyone actually watch the video? That’s not what he said. Not even a little bit.

  9. Chuck Z says:

    Effective immediately, all documents older than 50 years are null and void.
    The emancipation proclamation?
    Too bad. Get back in the cotton fields.
    The fouteenth amendment?
    Gone. States no longer have to follow the bill of rights.
    Also null and void:
    The designated hitter rules, the forward pass, unleaded fuel, muon particles (and higgs-boson too), supersonic flight, the magna charta (Long live the King!), the declaration of independence (Down the rebels!), Israel, and Global Warmening.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Maybe if people read it more often it wouldn’t be so difficult to understand. Got to know what you stand for before you can move forward.

  11. Claymore says:

    Seriously, did anyone actually watch the video? That’s not what he said. Not even a little bit.

    I watched it, and I assume what you’re implying is that he’s equating this to some sort of political stunt, which I generally believe to be true…but, taken into context with this shitdick’s other opinions, and his own admission in that video that what the Constitution says and means is up for personal interpretation clearly puts Ezzie in the “old document is old” camp.

  12. ROS says:

    Do impart upon us your wisdom through interpretation of his words, NSOM. Please.

  13. WOTN says:

    Key Klein quotes:
    “It [The US Constitution] has no binding power on anything.”
    “The issue is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago.”

    Wrong on both counts. It was written in plain English (contrast that with current legislation or say the HC bill) and does have binding power on everything the US Govt attempts to do. Every action of the government which is Unconstitutional is in fact illegal.

    The prevailing precedent of politicians and judges to ignore the Constitutional Constraints on government does not change the illicit nature of those actions no more than a cop watching someone shoot up heroin on the street makes that action legal.

  14. Claymore says:

    To be honest, I think Klein was pointing out that reading the Constitution at the open of the next Congress has no binding power on anything. As to his inability to comprehend the Constitution due to it being written so long ago, I’m certain that is just convenient for someone who wants to purposefully interpret shit the way they want without regard to original intent.

  15. NotSoOldMarine says:

    Yes, he was referring to the reading of the Constitution on the floor as being “not binding” on anything, not the Constitution itself. As for the rest of the video he was pointing out that the Constitution was written in another time with another set of circumstances facing the nation and its populace. There is a lot of nuance in the language, i.e. the debate of the meaning of “militia” in reference to right to the individual ownership of firearms (written in a time of muzzle loading rifles when the Army practically was a militia and invasion by foreign powers was a real threat) is evidence enough of that. Regardless of where you fall in that debate (I for one believe in the right of individual ownership) to deny that there’s a reason for debate at all isn’t any sort of scandalous statement.

    It’s why we have a Supreme Court.

  16. Claymore says:

    The reading is a political stunt…the fact that most of the intellectual elites are sneering at it is a political tragedy.

  17. NotSoOldMarine says:

    Not going to argue with that. The general level of cynicism and animosity displayed these days is really disheartening.

  18. WOTN says:

    The US Constitution constrains the authority of the Federal Government. It identifies authority and responsibility of the branches of government. It does so in plain English and specific boundaries.

    The nature of powerful elitists that desire to rule nations has not changed in any way that alters the need or means of the rules set forth in the US Constitution, though some elements of the Constitution have been legally changed by the Amendments to it, such as selection of US Senators, as well as the dates offices change hands, and how Presidential succession occurs.

    Article III describes the authority of the SCOTUS, which it places UNDER the Constitution.

    The FACT that the elected elitists, along with political appointees have disregarded the Constitution, “interpreting” it in ways they know it does not support does not justify the their illegal actions. But no amount of common law “precedence” overturns the actual document from which the judicial branch is governed and granted specific authorities UNDER it.

    A nice contrast is the power of a few pages to govern government versus the vast libraries used to bridle Health Care. That is the power of simple language.

  19. NotSoOldMarine says:

    Well the entire government isn’t beholden to the Constitution without caveat; the Constitution is simply the first and most powerful law in the country and can be changed like any other law. The Legislative branch has the authority to amend the Constitution as they see fit without input from the populace or the other two branches. It’s why (theoretically) the Legislative branch is considered to be the most powerful in the country.

  20. ROS says:

    So it’s just a suggestion to you?

  21. NotSoOldMarine says:

    Uh, no. It’s the law.

  22. ROS says:

    But a law that the government isn’t required to follow, as per your prior post.

  23. NotSoOldMarine says:

    No, a law the government is allowed to change. Like all laws. Because that’s what the legislative branch does, it makes and changes laws. Then if there’s a question as to the intent or applicability of a law to a particular situation the judicial branch takes over. Get it?

  24. ROS says:

    What I get is that I interpreted your statement much the way you’ve interpreted Mr. Klein’s, yet you disagree.

    See how that works?

  25. NotSoOldMarine says:

    Oh, I’m seeing how this works alright.

  26. NHSparky says:

    IOW, NSOM, laws are created not by the people based on need, but by the government based on how much power they need to grab to fulfill their agendas. And since the judiciary is more interested in MAKING rather than INTERPRETING laws as set forth in the Constitution, we can just do away with the whole fucking thing, right?

    Then that means we can do away with that pesky First Amendment and all that freedom of the press bullshit too, right?

  27. melle1228 says:

    >It’s why we have a Supreme Court

    No the reason we have a Supreme Court is to check the other two branches if they go out of the Constitution & thus against the will of the people. Read Jefferson’s opinion on Marbury v. Madison-SCOTUS was supposed to be a WEAK branch of the government only necessary to check the other two branches. Every (starting with Marbury v. Madison) and not outlined in the Constitution.

    The Constitution was never suppose to be a “living” document or meant to be changed frequently by case law. If it was the founders would have made the amendment process much easier or not instituted it at all. Changes in society and thus the law are meant to be handled on a local level, and not brought before judges.

  28. melle1228 says:

    Sorry that last line was supposed to read:

    Every power the court has “evolved” (starting with Marbury v. Madison) was done by their own rulings and not outlined in the Constitution. There is no one to check this power.

  29. Read Jefferson’s opinion on Marbury v. Madison – SCOTUS was supposed to be a WEAK branch of the government only necessary to check the other two branches.

    Yeah, my understanding is that the 3 branches of government were supposed to be co-equal. Each would serve as a check-and-balance on the others. The Supreme Court was never supposed to be the de facto ‘last word’ on the constitutionality of everything. It decided that on its own.

    Unfortunately, most people today actually believe that the US Supreme Court is the last word on the Constitutionality of laws. That’s only vaguely true, only because the people who we vote into office in the Executive and Legislative branches today are such ignoramuses on the US Constitution. And that is only true, because We, the People, are such ignoramuses on the US Constitution thanks to the horrible state of education in our public schools.

    Mark Levin had a great interview with Rush Limbaugh years ago when his book, “Men in Black”, was coming out. During the interview, he made the point that the Justices of the US Supreme Court are no better or worse than the members of the Executive or Legislative branches of government. But, somewhere along the way, people decided to bestow infallibility upon them and make them royalty, whose word cannot be questioned. But, they are nothing but fallible people appointed by other fallible people in the Executive Branch and approved by other fallible people in the Legislative Branch.


    LEVIN: I mean, you have everything from Santa Claus and Christmas trees. We have a court they couldn’t muster together a majority to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance on the merits of what’s in the Pledge of Allegiance — and let’s look at that for a second. The “wall of separation.” This is annoying to a lot of people and very upsetting. The Framers did not want a government religion. They did not want what they had in England, where everybody is taxed to support that religion and has to be a member of that religion or they’re punished, and so we’ve reached the point now where it’s been twisted and turned to mean what? If I don’t like what’s on public land and it bothers me, then I have a constitutional right to sue and get an ACLU lawyer and have it removed. Well, that’s not what the Constitution says. So where does this “wall-of-separation” language come from? It doesn’t come from Thomas Jefferson. It comes from Hugo Black, in 1947 and an Everson decision. Now, who’s Hugo Black? Hugo Black was appointed by FDR. Before that he was a senator. Before that he was for a couple years an active member of the Klan, and after he became an active member of the Klan, he was a lawyer, a very good lawyer for some Klan members who committed very violent acts, including one who killed a Catholic priest. Now, when he came on the court, I don’t know that he lost all those viewpoints, but in this particular decision involving public monies that incidentally would go to Catholic school children to help transport them to school, Black snuck this language into the decision: wall of separation, strict wall of separation. Now, that’s not in the Constitution. That’s nowhere in the Constitution. Black put it in the Constitution — excuse me — put it in this decision. So now when all these pseudo-civil libertarians are running around saying, you know, “separation of church and state,” I think our audience should remind them: You’re not quoting Jefferson; you’re quoting Hugo Black, the former Klansman!

    RUSH: Who was a Supreme Court justice. (Laughing.) Separation of church and state.


    RUSH: [ … ] We got about 3-1/2, four minutes here. What about some of the justices? There have been some quirky, interesting personalities on the court. Give us a few examples.

    LEVIN: Yeah, well, Thurgood Marshall. I don’t mean to be controversial but it is a fact. Near the end of his career on the court, apparently he spent many hours watching television, especially soap operas. People magazine, Rush, called him “a devotee of Days of Our Lives,” and he once told fellow justice, William Brennan, that you “can learn a lot about life from soap operas.” That’s why I think these guys should be term limited. William O. Douglas, an icon of the left. Author Bruce Allen Murphy — listen to this; this is pretty scary. It’s a Clinton moment. “Just a short time after she,” this is a flight attendant, “had entered Douglas’s chambers…” He invited this flight attendant to come visit him and he was going to show her the court, you know? [ … ]

    LEVIN: So a short time after she entered his chambers men’s of the staff began hearing strange sounds from inside: shouts, banging furniture and running feet. A short time later the office door flew open and out rushed the young woman her face all flushed and her clothing badly disheveled, shouting at the startled office staff how outraged and disgusted she was. Douglas, she said, had chased her around his desk, grabbing at her clothes and demanding that they go to a motel immediately for sexual liaison. [ … ]

    LEVIN: I’m not saying that’s Douglas’s entire career. I’m trying to point out these are imperfect people. There was James McReynolds appointed by Woodrow Wilson who many people don’t know was a segregationist himself. McReynolds was a racist and an anti-Semite. He said he “didn’t want the court plagued with another Jew” when they were appointing Benjamin Cardozo. Louis Brandeis was already on there. There was no official photo for the court for 1924 because McReynolds refused to stand next to Brandeis, and he would leave the room whenever Brandeis would speak in conference. He was hostile to Benjamin Cardozo. He often held a brief or record in front of his face when Cardozo would speak from the bench. I could go on and on about people who were on the court. President Taft. He met with eight members of the Supreme Court because one of the members was so senile, they didn’t want any of their cases to come before the court because they didn’t want this guy’s vote to go to sway the decision one way or another. There’s case after case. We have Abe Fortas who was taking money from a convicted swindler — and the point isn’t just to trash the court. The point is that the left has created this aura that is undeserved. They do not want us to look at this as a coequal branch of government. You hear it all the time, “Yes, but we need judicial review. What does the court say? What does the court say!” Sometimes we do. But what we don’t need from this course is the imposition of policy positions on the American people who are capable of making them themselves.

  30. melle1228 says:

    @ Michael

    That is so true. If you look at Blackmun who ultimately presided over the Roe v. Wade decision- he didn’t even make the decision primarily based on the Constitution. He talks about how he asked his wife and his daughter their opinions. He was also swayed by his daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock the year before ( she later miscarried- I believe) and had to marry a jerk of a husband.

    Bader-Ginsburg has gone on record even though she votes on “precedent” of Roe v. Wade and agrees with it wholeheartedly as saying it wasn’t based on constitutional law.

    It is amazing to me that 9 men or women who are voted in now largely based on identity politics and ideology are not answerable to the people. And case law(precedent) is largely ignored and thrown out if the judge wishes to change the precedent.

  31. melle1228 says:

    >Who was a Supreme Court justice. (Laughing.) Separation of church and state.

    BTW, Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree that killed the Church and state myth.

  32. And case law (precedent) is largely ignored and thrown out if the judge wishes to change the precedent.

    Yep. Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v Texas (sodomy decision) brought up how the court rejected the logic used in Lawrence when it upheld precedent regarding Roe v Wade. He said that if the same logic used in Lawrence was used in regard to a challenge to Roe, then Roe should be overturned, since the argued in Lawrence that stare decisis did not apply, since (I think) “society’s views had changed”. (Which is idiotic, because of society’s views had somehow changed on slavery, it would still be unconstitutional and not subject to go back into law based on society’s views changing).

    But, of course, when Roe is challenged, the Left rejects the logic of Lawrence and brings up stare decisis. The Left is completely illogical from one decision to another. They don’t base their opinions on the US Constitution, they base them on social engineering and what they WANT the law to be.

    Mark Levin also brought up some outrageous laws that have been upheld as Constitutional by past US Supreme Courts:

    “So we have slavery, segregation, the internment of American citizens. The Supreme Court was on the wrong side of all those.”

    Yet, so many people today consider the US Supreme Court to be infallible and the ‘last word’ on what laws are Constitutional. It’s ridiculous. But that’s what happens when the country is dumbed down and the Left works to use everything to push their agenda, including the courts.

  33. Here is more from that interview in case people don’t have a subscription to Rush 24/7:

    RUSH: Claiming they’re constitutional when the Constitution says nothing about it. That’s one of the things here. You ask… You don’t know why they did it. I have to ask you about this. It seems to me that — whatever you want to call, Democrat, liberal, leftist, whatever label you want to attach to it — this kind of extraconstitutional power and desire for it has been around for years and years and years and years, and what you have just said is not taught anymore in the public schools. What you’ve just said, I have no doubt, is big news to a whole lot of people listening to this program, that the Supreme Court itself determined it is the final arbiter of what’s constitutional or not, that it just took that on itself. Now, that’s a brazen power ploy as you just said. It has evolved now to the point that liberals, that’s the only way they can get the vast majority of what they believe woven into the fabric our society.

    LEVIN: Yeah.

    RUSH: Because that stuff would never pass legislatively, and so for years — for a century, over a century — this stuff, it’s just become accepted. Now the American people have been slowly lulled into a comfortability with the notion that the Supreme Court is the final word on controversial political subjects.

    LEVIN: Yeah, you know, let me be real clear about this. What are we talking about? We’re talking about today nine lawyers who are on the Supreme Court. Most people don’t know who five or six of those lawyers are, know very little about them. In our history we’ve had only about 120 justices. Some of them have been brilliant; some of them have been extremely competent; some of them have been racists; some of them have been senile, and some of them have been crooks. I mean they’re imperfect human beings, and it is time — as you wrote recently in an op-ed — to strip the veneer from the court and these justices. We shouldn’t hold them up higher than the elected branches. They’re no better and no worse than the people who serve in the elected branches. But where he we do draw the line is when they start setting policy based on their personal views or even more so-so views that are not expressed in the Constitution. In the dissent in Dred Scott in 1856 there was this Justice Curtis, and he couldn’t have put it better. If Justice Curtis were nominated by President Bush today, people like Chuck Schumer would say he’s an extremist and he’s unqualified. Justice Curtis said, speaking up against the decision of the court upholding slavery, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution. We are under the government of individual men who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according their own views of what it ought to mean.” This man could not be confirmed today to the United States Supreme Court!

  34. WOTN says:

    This demonstrates the fundamental problem of those willfully ignorant of the Constitution:
    “NotSoOldMarine Says:
    December 31st, 2010 at 5:33 pm
    Well the entire government isn’t beholden to the Constitution without caveat; the Constitution is simply the first and most powerful law in the country and can be changed like any other law. The Legislative branch has the authority to amend the Constitution as they see fit without input from the populace or the other two branches. It’s why (theoretically) the Legislative branch is considered to be the most powerful in the country.”

    NSOM: The Constitution (as written on the original papers) is FOUR pages long. Take the time to read it, including Article V, which spells out the Amendment procedures. The legislative branch of the Federal government may *propose* but cannot amend the Constitution.
    There are only 27 Amendments to it for a very good reason.

    No, the Constitution is not merely laws. It is the document that governs every aspect of federal government. Laws must conform to the constraints of the Constitution. It determines what branch is authorized what powers, reserving all other authority to the States and the Citizenry.

    Is “every aspect of the [federal] government beholden to the Constitution?” Perhaps not, but they are governed and constrained by it.
    That includes the Military, see the 3rd Amendment. See Art 2, Sect 2 & Art 1 Sect 8.

    To see how some attempt to twist the meaning of the 1st Amendment:

    The wall of seperation argument relies on ignoring the actual words of the 1st Amendment and relying instead on ‘opinions’ tendered by lawyers and judges.