Ezra Klein: "Constitution has no binding power on anything." [Archive] - Debate Policy

PDA

View Full Version : Ezra Klein: "Constitution has no binding power on anything."

BoogyMan

12-30-2010, 01:35 PM

revelarts

12-30-2010, 06:59 PM

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/raenine12/puk.jpg

Kathianne

12-30-2010, 08:24 PM

Thought you all might enjoy this bit of satire:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/12/the-constitution-is-very-important.html

spot. on.

NightTrain

12-31-2010, 12:06 AM

Thought you all might enjoy this bit of satire:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/12/the-constitution-is-very-important.html

spot. on.

That's awesome, Kathi! :clap::clap::clap:

Fortunately, and most importantly, the Founding Fathers also invented the Supreme Court which does a good job of translating the Constitution into modern words and juxtaposing them for all of us, the American people of the United States.

And this is, in at least five hundred words, not including the foot notes, what the Constitution means to me.

Footnotes

1. http://www.wikipedia.com
2. Law and Order, NBC-TV
:laugh2:

Joe Steel

12-31-2010, 03:55 PM

jimnyc

12-31-2010, 03:56 PM

The Constitution is a waxy document which can bent to any purpose whatever. It's virtually useless as an objective standard for legislation. The planned reading in the House is a stunt meant to entertain the M&Ms not to add to the majesty of the institution. Boehner and the rest of the vermin of his party should be ashamed.

Try again, dumbass.

BoogyMan

12-31-2010, 04:10 PM

Alright Joe, explain why those who are trying to get us back to using our founding documents as guides for the operation of our government should be ashamed.

There are communist countries in which those of your ilk can move to and bask in their depravity without trying to destroy this one.

The Constitution is a waxy document which can bent to any purpose whatever. It's virtually useless as an objective standard for legislation. The planned reading in the House is a stunt meant to entertain the M&Ms not to add to the majesty of the institution. Boehner and the rest of the vermin of his party should be ashamed.

Joe Steel

12-31-2010, 04:29 PM

Alright Joe, explain why those who are trying to get us back to using our founding documents as guides for the operation of our government should be ashamed.

As I said, the reading is a stunt. It adds nothing of practical value to the resources available to the House. It is pandering for the benefit of the dimwits who think the Constitution is a sacred text rather than an outline for the organization of a government.

revelarts

12-31-2010, 05:03 PM

The Constitution is a waxy document which can bent to any purpose whatever. It's virtually useless as an objective standard for legislation.

That is a Ridiculous statement. You'd probably be 1 of the 1st ones crying "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" if the feds turned off some cable channel for its programing. threw you in prison without a warrant. Or added a conservative 13th supreme court judge.

But sadly the Bill of rights and Copnstitution has been treated AS IF it's pretty waxy by both sides. But the Constitution unlike most of the legislation written TODAY, If you read it, you can understand it and apply it.

It's only useless if you don't like it. And want to do something else.

The planned reading in the House is a stunt meant to entertain the M&Ms not to add to the majesty of the institution. Boehner and the rest of the vermin of his party should be ashamed.

I believe that it is a Show Piece. We'll see just how far they take their commitment to the doc over the next few months. I'll be shocked but pleasantly surprised if they try to repeal ANY unconstitutional items. ANd I won't be surprised if they find some excuse to TAKE more of our liberties and claim more unconstitutional powers under the guise of KEEPING US SAFE. And sadly a few here will cheer as more of the constitution is thrown under the bus while saying they are for all of the constitution.

BoogyMan

12-31-2010, 05:31 PM

As I said, the reading is a stunt. It adds nothing of practical value to the resources available to the House. It is pandering for the benefit of the dimwits who think the Constitution is a sacred text rather than an outline for the organization of a government.

So the average American who holds the constitution to be a document that our freedoms were built upon is a dimwit?

What an onerous and stupid thing to say.

fj1200

01-01-2011, 01:14 AM

fj1200

01-01-2011, 01:16 AM

As I said, the reading is a stunt. It adds nothing of practical value to the resources available to the House. It is pandering for the benefit of the dimwits who think the Constitution is a sacred text rather than an outline for the organization of a government.

Maybe, just maybe, it'll be a nice reminder to our fine upstanding Congressmen that they just took an oath to uphold that silly sacred text.

revelarts

01-01-2011, 08:06 AM

I believe he was saying that the READING of it has no binding power, which is true.

Congress doesn't read the laws they write Aloud or Silently yet some how they have binding power.

the constitution is suppose to be the supreme LAW of the land. You'd think it would be binding in some way.

Joe Steel

01-01-2011, 08:38 AM

So the average American who holds the constitution to be a document that our freedoms were built upon is a dimwit?

What an onerous and stupid thing to say.

What a deceitful, disgraceful thing to say.

That's not what I said.

jimnyc

01-01-2011, 08:44 AM

As I said, the reading is a stunt. It adds nothing of practical value to the resources available to the House. It is pandering for the benefit of the dimwits who think the Constitution is a sacred text rather than an outline for the organization of a government.

What a deceitful, disgraceful thing to say.

That's not what I said.

So who are they pandering to, Joe, the democrats?

Joe Steel

01-01-2011, 09:04 AM

So who are they pandering to, Joe, the democrats?

You should read more closely. My problem was with those who hold the Constitution to be a "sacred text." The other poster said it was with those who hold the Consitution to be the basis of American freedom.

jimnyc

01-01-2011, 09:13 AM

You should read more closely. My problem was with those who hold the Constitution to be a "sacred text." The other poster said it was with those who hold the Consitution to be the basis of American freedom.

I did read closely, Joe, and this is exactly what you wrote:

It is pandering for the benefit of the dimwits who think the Constitution is a sacred text rather than an outline for the organization of a government.

I think it's a valid question to ask who you feel they are pandering to.

Joe Steel

01-01-2011, 09:31 AM

I did read closely, Joe, and this is exactly what you wrote:

No you didn't. "Dimwits who hold the Consitution to be a sacred text" is different from "dimwits who hold the Consitution to be the basis of American freedom."

I think it's a valid question to ask who you feel they are pandering to.

Teabaggers.
Conservative zealots.

jimnyc

01-01-2011, 09:40 AM

No you didn't. "Dimwits who hold the Consitution to be a sacred text" is different from "dimwits who hold the Consitution to be the basis of American freedom."

Teabaggers.
Conservative zealots.

Oh, I see, so what Boogyman wrote was "deceitful and disgraceful", because you weren't referring to the average American - just "teabaggers and conservatives"?

Joe Steel

01-01-2011, 09:56 AM

Oh, I see, so what Boogyman wrote was "deceitful and disgraceful", because you weren't referring to the average American - just "teabaggers and conservatives"?

No. It was deceitful and disgraceful becaue he was distorting and misrpresenting what I said.

fj1200

01-01-2011, 11:23 AM

Congress doesn't read the laws they write Aloud or Silently yet some how they have binding power.

the constitution is suppose to be the supreme LAW of the land. You'd think it would be binding in some way.

Oh, I completely agree with you there, I was just trying to clarify what I thought Klein said.

BoogyMan

01-01-2011, 03:23 PM

What a deceitful, disgraceful thing to say.

That's not what I said.

That is EXACTLY what you said, Joe. If you are going to use words you should man up and own them instead of dropping an indefensible comment in a thread and then drowning in the thrash of your own backpeddaling.

Joe Steel

01-02-2011, 09:12 AM

That is EXACTLY what you said, Joe. If you are going to use words you should man up and own them instead of dropping an indefensible comment in a thread and then drowning in the thrash of your own backpeddaling.

Noting your disgraceful and deceitful misrepresentation of my comment is not backpedaling.

NightTrain

01-02-2011, 10:59 AM

That is EXACTLY what you said, Joe. If you are going to use words you should man up and own them instead of dropping an indefensible comment in a thread and then drowning in the thrash of your own backpeddaling.

Joe came equipped from the factory with 5 reverse gears linked to a paddle shifter.

Little-Acorn

01-02-2011, 11:16 AM

LuvRPgrl

01-03-2011, 02:47 AM

Is this clown's attitude pervasive on the left? It seems so to me.

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UkU6UaG" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UkU6UaG" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

If Im hearing the guy right, he is saying the "reading" of it is a waste and has no binding power,,,,in that case, he is right.

I agree to a point with Joe Steel, alot of it is waxy, but even so, we should be using it as a basis for all our govt, but for over 10 years now, I have known,and been saying, we are not goverened by the COTUS in any way shape or form any more,and I think the repubs are mostly doing this as a stunt

although I also think SOME of them are doing it for the right reason, pointing out that we SHOULD be going back to it as a basis for our govt, which it simply no longer is, At ALL.

Its really kinda a joke to think the Constitution dictates any of our govt anymore

BoogyMan

01-03-2011, 09:12 PM

Noting your disgraceful and deceitful misrepresentation of my comment is not backpedaling.

See Joe, words mean things. The words you used meant EXACTLY what they said which is exactly why you cannot hold your water in these discussions.

Man up, own what you said!

BoogyMan

01-03-2011, 09:15 PM

If Im hearing the guy right, he is saying the "reading" of it is a waste and has no binding power,,,,in that case, he is right.

I agree to a point with Joe Steel, alot of it is waxy, but even so, we should be using it as a basis for all our govt, but for over 10 years now, I have known,and been saying, we are not goverened by the COTUS in any way shape or form any more,and I think the repubs are mostly doing this as a stunt

although I also think SOME of them are doing it for the right reason, pointing out that we SHOULD be going back to it as a basis for our govt, which it simply no longer is, At ALL.

Its really kinda a joke to think the Constitution dictates any of our govt anymore

That was quite interestingly circular. :)

They are trying to show that the consitution WAS and IS valid as the basis of our government and our freedoms. I can think of no better place to have the document read aloud than in the well of the house in order to bring it to the remembrance of those who swear they will uphold it.

LuvRPgrl

01-04-2011, 01:18 AM

That was quite interestingly circular. :)

They are trying to show that the consitution WAS and IS valid as the basis of our government and our freedoms. I can think of no better place to have the document read aloud than in the well of the house in order to bring it to the remembrance of those who swear they will uphold it.

r they just reading it, or are they doing more than just that?

BoogyMan

01-04-2011, 08:01 AM

r they just reading it, or are they doing more than just that?

It is my understanding that the text was to simply be read.

I also understand that there is a push to attach a proviso to each piece of legislation that lays out the constitutionality of the legislation.

red states rule

01-05-2011, 04:00 AM

Liberals have alot of disdain for the US Constitution (since it gets in the way of much of their agenda) and it shows here with three liberals laughing off the notion of any elected official reading the Constitution

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6USUkU6U" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6USUkU6U" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

red states rule

01-05-2011, 04:45 AM

and the NY Times this morning is in s snit over the Republicans actually talking about the US Constitution and (at least for now) wanting to keep the promises they made to get elected

A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber. And in one particularly self-important flourish, the new speaker, John Boehner, arranged to have his office staff “sworn in” on Tuesday by the chief justice of the United States.

Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.

The empty gestures are officially intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate — presumably to the Republicans’ Tea Party supporters — that things are about to be done very differently. But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation’s foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?

In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.

There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it. The new House leadership says this is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker’s chair.

All of this, though, is simply eyewash — the equivalent of a flag-draped background to a speech — compared with the actual legislation the Republicans plan to pass. And though much of that has no possibility of being enacted, it does suggest the depth of the struggle to come. The bill tauntingly titled the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” has nothing to do with increasing employment and will never reach the Senate floor, but shows that the leadership is willing to threaten the hard-fought access to health care for millions of the uninsured, just to make a political point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/opinion/05wed1.html?hp

CSM

01-05-2011, 07:29 AM

Seems like the NYT forgot the pomposity of Pelosi's triumpahnt march carrying the "hammer". Talk about a "self important" flourish!

revelarts

01-05-2011, 07:59 AM

In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.

There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it. The new House leadership says this is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker’s chair.
WOW
that sums up the liberals take in a few words:
•reinterpretation
•See! see! parts are really bad!
•it's Not required to abide by when law making (republicans do that to)
•the court makes the law.

you'd think they where vampires and someone was going to bring a cross into the church they took over.
"Snarl, Spits "A CROSS" , It's a relic of the passstt, and not needed heeere, snarll"

red states rule

01-06-2011, 03:58 AM

WOW
that sums up the liberals take in a few words:
•reinterpretation
•See! see! parts are really bad!
•it's Not required to abide by when law making (republicans do that to)
•the court makes the law.

you'd think they where vampires and someone was going to bring a cross into the church they took over.
"Snarl, Spits "A CROSS" , It's a relic of the passstt, and not needed heeere, snarll"

The NY Times would rather have a constitutional expert like Nancy Pelosi determine if pending legislation is constitutional

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdSU2GZu8z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdSU2GZu8z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

red states rule

01-06-2011, 05:28 AM

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria110106_cmyk20110105081737.jpg