Fair warning. Ezra Klein’s remarks today about the “gimmicky” Constitution blew the release valve of my snark-meter clean off, so read on at your own risk. And don’t say that I didn’t warn you.
The latest from the Washington Post’s resident adolescent is that the Constitution is “confusing” because it’s like so “100 years ago” (probably written by James Buchanan or Teddy Roosevelt or someone back when the Western World still communicated in grunts and smoke signals). Also, the Republican’s plan to actually trot the moldy, musty, archaic old thing out in the House chamber of all places and actually – OMG – read it, is a “gimmick.” Kind of like when all those congresspeople swore their respective oaths to uphold it and gimmicky stuff like that.
Let’s see… anything else? Oh yeah. Also, the Constitution “has no binding power on anything.”
Really. I’m not making it up. No binding power. On anything. Watch the tape if you don’t believe me.
Oh, well, it’s hardly surprising from a little twerp who has expressed “occasional” perplexity at the “veneration of our founders.” I think, because their pesky rules keep him and other frustrated leftists in check, or something like that. He was whining about state’s rights at the time if I remember correctly. Anyway, I commented on that remarkable sentiment last September.
…Klein implied Friday that he would happily shackle Wyoming and Nebraska to the whims of New York and California if he could. He didn’t say why, but I suspect it’s because that would advance his left-wing agenda. If it was the other way around, I’m sure he’d be a Jefferson-quoting cheerleader for the status quo. See, no principles.
Anyway, being as our constitutional form of government is blocking a complete slide into socialism, Klein expressed his discontent with the framers’ dual legislative bodies that represent the people in one house and the states in the other, by stating: “I think our veneration for the Founders is something that occasionally perplexes me.”
So there you have it. If you can trash the founders in September, why not trash The Constitution in December as confusing, non-binding, gimmicky, pointless and obsolete because “what people believe it says differs from person to person depending on what they want to get done.” To get the context, here is the transcript of the interchange between Klein and MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell from Newsbusters:
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.
Yes, it’s a shame that those callow Philistines who planned our country couldn’t have created a document as straightforward as the 2000-plus page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (you know, the one that the Speaker of the House said needed to be passed so we could figure out what’s in it) or even this year’s mutant Omnibus Appropriations Bill That Ate Chicago.
Nevertheless, Klein has been taking a little heat, so he tried to clarify today on his blog:
My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it. The Second Amendment, for instance, says nothing about keeping a gun in the home if you’ve not signed up with a “well-regulated militia,” but interpreting the Second Amendment broadly has been important to those who want to bear arms. And so they’ve done it.
I know. That darned bugaboo, the Second Amendment. Bummer that the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” are so ambiguous. It’s such a shame that those inexplicably venerated founders couldn’t have been clearer. After all, they did so well with the First Amendment, when they plainly stated their wish that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be forfeit at the edge of a knife if one happens to be unduly young and inconvenient.
Give me a break. Please.
As I wrote when Klein trashed the Founders back in September, “lefties don’t like to be thwarted, especially by men in wigs centuries before they were born. Our founders were savvy men whose diligent study of human nature helped them design the most bullet-proof system of fairness and freedom they could possibly muster. They figured on Klein, even back then. He knows it, and that’s what bugs him.”
Melissa Clouthier at Liberty Pundits says it even better:
President Obama and many of the statists of the Left are not interested in the Constitution. They’re sick of the Constitution. They want a new document that gives every American a system of entitlements and in their starry eyed vision, they believe producers will stay around to pay taxes to ensure that the non-producers receive these proactive “rights” whether the lazy earn them or not.
It is not grandstanding to read the Constitution on the floor of the House. It’s a damn good reminder that these jerks in charge are constrained. They are limited. The benefits to an American is to not be harassed in his quest to find happiness. An American seeks his own life and liberty and happiness on his terms–not on terms meted out be some strangling government mistress.
Ever heard of a velvet collar? That is what the Democrats would like to shackle all Americans with and the only thing stopping them is the Constitution. The Constitution, in all its magnificence is a rather straight-forward document, though scholars disagree here and there.
The new leftist scholars cite international law. They seek any source outside the Constitution. The bonds of the document burn and they want to rid themselves of it to pursue some modern utopia. They bumble along with a soft Marxist ideology blinded to human nature and the reality of their ideas brought to fruition.
So, Ezra Klein can spare everyone the pretense. A good many Americans suspect that what drooled out of his mouth this morning was fairly representative of leftist thought: The Constitution is difficult to understand and old … and irrelevant.
No. It is not. It’s just tough for Leftists hell-bent on smothering freedom under the guise of “positive rights”.