Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
What an ultra-maroon! I believe that the US Constitution should be read MORE often, and its quite plain text studied more, before our elected lawmakers write any more incomprehensiable laws, such as ObamaCare, and the huge pork-laden “Omnibus” bill they attempted to ram through in the Lame-duck session.
Mr. Klein was “technically” educated at UCLA. Or so I understand. But it appears that the “education” didn’t “take”. He suffers from the young buffoon’s disease which insists that history started on the day he was born. Anything else is just old and “icky” stuff.
One ought not be unduly harsh on young Ezra. Most generations have suffered, to one degree or another, from the young buffoon’s disease. It takes a while to outgrow it, and some never did.
“Mr. Klein was “technically” educated at UCLA. Or so I understand. But it appears that the “education” didn’t “take”. ”
It ‘took’ quite well. Remember that the leftists at elite universities impress that the constitution is ‘a living document’ that doesn’t mean anything but needs to be ‘interpreted’ by themselves to tell people what it means at any specific moment.
I’d say we should be quite harsh with Mr. Klein. He has had every advantage to achieve self awareness of his own ignorance and failed. I suppose, for all his credentials, he has missed out on the one school he needed, the school of hard knocks. This is not his first sanctimonious expounding in absence of knowledge and it will undoubtable not be his last. One can excuse such things from a child but Mr. Klein reached even the new age of maturity, 26, so it’s time for him to put on the long pants and stand to account for his foolish understanding of the fundamental element of our nation.
Confusing? Pretty clear. Mr. Kleins comments, and subsequent spin, are right there with Ms. Katies:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/katie-couric-we-need-a-muslim-version-of-the-cosby-show/
Klein is a maroon, as well as a moron.
Reading the comments to his “update” is disturbing. There are so many idiots out there I doubt the country will pull back from the brink, assuming, of course, we aren’t already over the brink.
Limits on gun possession in the 2nd amendment? They need to get a copy of the real constitution, because they ain’t there. That’s only the beginning and saying anymore on the matter would simply be depressing.
Reasonably off topic…Love your header, Lex, and Happy New Year to you, sir! Here’s hoping you get to kiss all the Lex Babes at midnight
+acouple.
So exactly when was the last time the WaPo was relevant to anything? I don’t even read the Sunday edition at B&N anymore. Wastatimenmoney.
Lex and Mike Myers … I think Mike wins the ‘best explanatory phrase’ award for today. Congratulations, Mike — “young buffoons’ disease” covers the case perfectly, as far as Mr. Klein is concerned.
Marianne
You can’t fix stupid. He once again reminds me of the arrogance of youth, just as it did when I rolled into law school with a fleet tour under my belt and was amazed at the utter nonsense being spewed by Berkeley Poli-Sci majors who, at the experienced age of 22 and having never held a job a day in their lives, were the world’s foremost authorities on utterly everything. I mean, how did this person even come to be called up to speak on even a marginal network like MSNBC?
“…how did this person even come to be called up to speak…”
Comjam. Surely you jest. This is PMSNBC and you have to wonder why??? They have to audition for *someone* as Olberman’s eventual future replacement, don’t they?
Klein: Another “the Constitution as a living document” means-the Constitution-is-whatever-5-Supreme-Court-Judges-say-it-is-using-it-as-a-fig-leaf-for-their-personal-political-views, kinda guy, i.e., one who views the SCOTUS as nothing but a politicized super legislature “to do good.” (Whatever THAT means*)
*See: “5 judges”, “personal-political-views,” above.
Klein is suffering from a messy face, having spit into the wind. Now, as he discovers which way it is blowing, he’s moved slightly. His agenda outran his brain cells (again). D.C.? SNAFU.
The Constitution is amendable. Indeed it has been amended 27 times. And will be again in the future.
Furthermore a large number of Constitutional Amendments are proposed each year, but never become law. During each term in Congress up to 200 amendments are proposed, although most never get out of committee.
Yes, it is, Flit. And your point is?
What does it matter how many amendments are proposed each year? That same basic structure remains intact, even with the amendments.
The point being is that it is a “living document” that has been and can in fact be further modified.
The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. The Supreme Court therefore has the power of judicial review that maintains a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
Once again the point is that it can not only be changed, but also is subject to repeated interpretations by the Court.
@ Filterman (et al):
“Once again the point is that it can not only be changed, but also is subject to repeated interpretations by the Court.”
Precisely, and a rather obvious reason the current composition of Congress is so out of kilter. Lawyers are 2% of the workforce, yet 100% of the judiciary, 85% of the executive branch (leadership), 60% of the Senate, and 40% of the House. Am I the only person able to see a dire conflict of interest in the Lawyer-Political Complex? The writes and interprets law?
No wonder it so often appears that party affiliation is misleading — more than they are loyal to the public, lawyers are collegial to each other.
Not everyone in Congress is a law graduate? Well, perhaps the underrated ethics and investigating (standing committees) are not only bipartisan, but comprised of nonlawyers. Check it out for yourself.
These committees are underrated arms of congress that wield power against those who don’t go along.
Happy New Year!? Let’s hope.
If you read the comments of people like Jeffrerson, Madison, and others who were there, you will see that they saw the Constitution as a benchmark against which government actions were to be measured. Last I checked, benchmarks are stable, unchanging reference points.
Here is one:
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison
Doesn’t sound like he was talking about a “living document”
(damn, I gotta get a dock so I can plug in my old hard drive with all the quotes and bookmarks)
Find out whether the drive is IDE or SATA, and then locate the appropriate drive tape to connect it to the motherboard. The next time you boot it up it will look like an additional drive on the system. SATA drives are easier to connect as the auxiliary drive, but neither takes a whole lot of work to ocnfigure. After it’s up, the rest is easy.
Cheers!
Flit, sometimes you sound like Alan Colmes toward the end of his partnership with Sean Hannity, tired and spouting party line rhetoric that he no longer believes in. I used to see Colmes during the last general election, and one could see in his eyes that played Devil’s advocate against Conservatives more as a duty than as a place of belief. He spoke, Flit, from a place of idealism that had no realistic chance of survival in today’s world.
You may be one of a dying breed of old school liberals, Flit, but so many of your brethren out there have converted over to Socialism. Back in the day your style of Liberalism played an important counterpoint to Conservatism by providing a voice of compassionate reason, but the Liberals we see today are mainly espousing Socialism as a means to ending our Democracy and freedoms viz a viz the Constitution. We’ll simply not stand for it. Today’s Liberals seek to redefine our lexicon, rewrite our history, and to subvert our individual freedoms for the increased empowerment of government. I’ll be dead before that happens.
In a way, Flit, I wish you’d run for Congress. If I’ve read it right you live in the same District represented by Nancy Pelosi, and I wish you would knock her the hell out of the 2012 race. If you truly are a Liberal, as you represent yourself to be, then stand up and show America what it means to be a Liberal instead of some damnable closet Socialist. I mean that sincerely and not as a pejorative insult.
Happy New Year to you and all here.
Mongo
Yes, it is, Flit. And your point is?
What does it matter how many amendments are proposed each year? That same basic structure remains intact, even with the amendments.
I have to ask, do you own a majority of stock in the red herring industry?
Exactly the point, Flit. During the 200 plus years that this incredible document has been the LAW of the land (for the limp wristed elite who believe that no truths are self-evident save their own)it has only been amended 27 times, even though, as you say, Congress attempts to do so on a regular basis. For a document percieved by the left to be so fluid, it seems very hard to change…unless a liberal judge decides to do some social engineering on his/her own.
“Living document” is a code phrase for “it means whatever some black robed left-wing shyster says it means. It has nothing to do with the fact the framers made it amendable.
Lawyers should not be allowed to run for anything but judge. They are already a member of the judicial branch as they are supposed to be officers of the court. Lawyers dominating legislatures is one reason the law is such a twisted mess of spaghetti these days.
I just violated a Fl statute on account of reading that: I handled my piece, and some ammo, although I had been drinking.
…..Depends on, exactly what ‘piece’ you were handling…………??
Oh, the blue steel kind. I did not load it, just made sure that the cylinder latch worked. It had been sticking due to disuse and congealed oil. I was just checking to make sure that recent application of Break-Free had loosened it up.
Sure it’s hard to understand. No one but the educated elite can comprehend what Madison was trying to say. And, it doesn’t say what YOU think it says. It says what I want it to say for YOU.
Moonbat.
Turns out the guy who “invented” geology wasn’t understood by the British science organization….at all. It took one of his students, after his death to explain it, so the rest of the world understood the science(source “A brief History of nearly everything” by Bryson).
Just because you can’t understand, it doesn’t mean it’s no good…just might mean you’re too stupid to engage in an effort to comprehend.
The 1911 .45 is just over 100 years old in design. It is still pretty useful.
Mr. Klein likely had no probs reading the work published in 1848 by Karl Marx.
Confusing as a 2300 page piece of legislation that is passed by Congress, before it even has all it’s text included….Haven’t looked, but Mr Klien is probably a stauch defender of that fine “document,” (that violates said Constitution, as several judges have now said)…
And I was “technically” uneducated, as I couldn’t get a real job for 20 years….
Ezra Klein is so dense that light bends around him. In addition, I find it hard to believe that he beat out 1,000,000 other sperm.
“…I find it hard to believe that he beat out 1,000,000 other sperm.” It was a claiming race.
The “living constitution” or “living document” comments are no more than code word for “Let me pee down your leg” B.S. It either gets interpreted the same for all or is nothing but ideology.
Mr.Klein is a pissant.
Saw this at 4:30 a.m. before I went off to work and nearly blew my blood pressure into the same level as the Dow…Are you F’ing kidding me???
As one who took my oath of enlistment as a life-long promise, I identify this idjit as a “domestic enemy” of the US Constitution.
Posted about it at US Navy Jeep
http://usnavyjeep.blogspot.com/2010/12/ezra-kleindomestic-enemy-of-us.html
What a tool…a looney lefty lib tool who likely has a autographed picture of Ms. Pelosi hanging up in his home somewheres …Hold on, I just threw up a little in my mouth…ugh.
The Defenders of the US Constitution enter into evidence the following entry that Mr. Klein posted on his own blog -
Nazi Ideas by Ezra Klein
” I’m with Jane Galt on this one: Not everything the Nazis touched was bad. Hitler was a vegetarian. Volkswagen is a perfectly good car company. Universal health care is a perfectly good idea. Indeed, the Nazis actually did a pretty good job increasing economic growth and improving standards of living (they were, many think, the first Keynesians, adopting the strategy even before Keynes had come up with it), pushing Germany out of a depression and back into expansion. Unfortunately, they also set out to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews. People shouldn’t do that. ”
Posted by Ezra Klein on September 11, 2006 3:21 PM
ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/nazi_ideas.html
OMG….Are you f&*King kidding me?!?
May the ghosts of Dachau and others rise up to beat the snot out of this little sh!t.
Amen Brother….he has already bought himself a First Class ticket to Hell….sooner rather than later – Inshalla
Having seen some of the remaining bomb damage living in Germany in the late 50s, I seriously doubt the German population of 1945 would agree that he improved the living conditions of the German people. Hitler also bankrupted the German Government. The head of the Reichsbank was fired before he could announce the fact to the world.
There is a saying in Germany,
Deutschland, Hitler Ueber alles, all he gave was a cold potato. While there were a few nostalgic of Nazi Germany (mainly former SS), overwhelmingly the people that lived through that period would never go back.
SK1, my friend … Yes, indeedy, Volkswagen is a “perfectly good car company.” I’ve owned two of Dr. Porsche’s ‘peoples cars’ in my lifetime, and loved each one. Even though I hated and still hate the Nazis. But I’d like to ask Mr. Klein what the heck that has to do with the validity of the American Constitution?
I think Mr. Klein needs quite a large dose of humility applied to his brain cells. In the words of Julie Andrews in My Fair Lady, “No, my reverberating friend, You are NOT the beginning and the end…”
And a Happy New Year to you all, my dears. And we can hope for a better year to come for all of us, even poor Mr. Klein. “With age, comes wisdom.” Finally.
Marianne
Marianne,
You wrote: ‘“With age, comes wisdom.” Finally.’
Pinky Swear? Because I really need SOMETHING to look forward to.
And, oh, by the way, you are a national treasure.
Craig
Got a 1966 VW Bug in pieces in my garage…no realtion to the F&*ked up little corporal who inflicted genocide on millions no more than the Japanese toys I played with when I was litte were tied to attack on Pearl Harbor….Germans were taken hostage by the NAZI bastards as they had no hope and little will to resist – when you see how he terrorized his own people, looks alot like Saddam & Iraq….just like Taliban in AFGHN but more systematic(German work ethic, ya know)- It is history and we should LEARN from it.
I got my Christmas present when I got to come home from AFGHN and resume my life at HOME….best presetn I could have got…all my best to you Ma’am and all others here at Chez Lex….especially our fine host.
Happy 2011 to all…..maybe we can spend part of it showing what tools these liberal idjits are and get the USA back on course….Inshalla….
The worst part is they let these bastards reproduce and teach this garbage to their children. That’s unforgivable.
There were over a thousand people at the “Restoring Honor” Rally.
There are many times the number that were there that understand the Constitution as if they had read it yesterday.
They are particularly well versed in the parts that say “Congress shall make no law respecting….”.
And those people are familiar with a number of other old writings–some of them a lot older, that say things like “Thou shalt not ….”.
If you all believe in, respect and honor, and maybe even have fought for our Constitution and the freedoms that it protects and guarantees, you might consider looking into the (yes I know, most hated by many here), ACLU.
Indeed some commenters here appear to advocate exactly what they, the ACLU advocate.
Check ‘em out.
Sure would be nice if they were consistent in their “understanding” of The Constitution.
Seems they have more money to fight for the rights og detainees in GTMO than for citizens within the US, say like those who don’t want to be forced by their employers into choices that are offensive to their conscience….which, is an equally valid view with the famous “freedom of choice” (oh, yes, not mentioned at all in The Constitution,,,)…now the freedom not to choose to buy insurance on a Federal law’s requirement…also not mentioned in The Constitution, but somehow, now we “Citizens” all of a sudden have no right to choose….are they fighting that? Nope…has to be the States AGs…
What RSS feed sends in the “talking points” daily? I’d love to read them, too
When all ACLU offices post all 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights, then I might agree that “The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty.”
Of course, it would also have to either support the free exercise clause, or go after every instance of non-Christian religion on public grounds/public fora.
But while it picks and chooses which amendments We, the People, deserve, and actively work to push down only one religion, then it is just another front for the socialists.
Ah Flit, the American Condescending Lawyers Union. An organization that picks its fights carefully for political correctness uber alles. They’ve never met a conservative they didn’t dislike; they’ve never met a liberal that they wouldn’t sleep with, slobber all over, maybe french kiss.
If the ACLU played both sides of the street with equal fairness, I’d respect them. But they don’t. So I don’t.
And here it is at 930 pm on the West Coast, and a lot of us are still willing to pull out the verbal cudgels and bash the (figuratively bleeding corpse) of a silly little twerp named Ezra Klein. I assume his mother loved him–or somebody loves him. Maybe his dog. Just not us. Put a smile on your face and forget the little jerk. Tomorrow’s a brand new day and a brand new year.
When we talk about, “The Constitution of the United States of America”, it is my personal belief, that it applies as written to both sides of the aisle and to All branches, specifically including all three branches. I do NOT believe the Executive Branch has any more power then the powers specifically given to it by The Constitution. I also believe the Executive Branch is bound by all Federal Law, with the other two branches.
To those of us that have served in the US Military, we have sworn an oath, but equally so, so have they sworn an oath to protect and defend that very same “Constitution of the United States of America”.
I’d go a step further and say I don’t think the Judicial has the right or the legal power to rewrite the document–amendments are the only way to do that.
Trying to remember the clause of the Constitution which grants the Supreme Court the authority to “interpret the Constitution.” Can’t recall seeing that power enumerated anywhere in Article III.
Pretty sure that it only grants the Courts the power to decide cases in law and equity which arise UNDER the Constitution.
Sarge – Maybe this will help you, from the Supreme Court’s own website:
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
Some excerpts: “[the Supreme Court] also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”
“Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation…”
“…Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process.”
“It is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution.”
QED
flit, that’s a self-serving argument by assertion if I ever heard one. The entire concept of “judicial review,” i.e., the “interpretation” of the language of the Constitution itself rather than of Congress’ legislative intent insofar as legislative language of Congressional promulgated laws/acts square with the strictures of the Constitution is entirely the vision of one man–John Marshall–made up out of whole cloth like Athena sprung fully armored from the forehead of Zeus.(Or Minerva from Jupiter if you’re of Roman extract
)
The fact that the SCOTUS has, over the years, pulled off forcefully foisting off John Marshall’s singular vision of how things on the SCOTUS “should work” relative to the Constitution upon the general public to the extent it is presently seen/accepted as essentially now codified through tradition still doesn’t make it right. And, yes, just as was the case with Plessy v. Fergeson, it will remain seen/accepted as “good law” and the “only way of doing things” by the general public–right up and until the very nano-second it isn’t.
This is a very interesting discussion about powers of The Supreme Court of the United States. I have a question, does the Supreme Court have the right or responsibility to speak about the Constitutionality of every piece of Legislation? The fact of the matter is this, the Court only can rule upon cases brought before it. Each of these cases, must go through a rigorous process to get before the Supreme Court. Of those cases desiring to be brought before the High Court, many are remanded back to a lower Court decision. Essentially, this becomes the ruling of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the answer to my question is this, The Supreme Court can only speak, in any way, is when a case is actually brought before it on Constitutional Grounds. This cuts many of the cases away and the High Court has no power to comment.
Well, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, “Young man, this is not a court of justice, this is a court of law!” Law being what the judges say it is.
“Does the Supreme court have the right to…”
I am not a lawyer.
But it is my strongly held opinion that the supreme court has the same rights that any other court does–none.
It, like all other properly constituted (interesting word, that) courts has the authority to hear cases that are brought to it and that it chooses to accept. It, like other courts, has no authority to originate cases itself.
It can, if it chooses to, and like other courts, accept cases that have not been through the lower courts–the best recent example being the Gore attempt to steal the election–any fool could see that it was going to be decided at the top, that time was of the essence, geetus ona framus.
Then authority of the courts is established by law, operating rules and procedures are established by law (including Natural Law), by higher courts, and by a court itself.
But every case has to start with somebody alleging that somebody done somebody else wrong. (and only the lowest court hears and decides facts. Courts appealed-to hear and decide law (and maybe procedure). There are exceptions. some of them proper.
“The Constitution elaborated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole.
Thus, it was left to Congress and to the Justices of the Court through their decisions to develop the Federal Judiciary and a body of Federal law.”
This continues to be a good discussion. When we look at what Mr. Klein said, in my mind there’s an old saying the range curve in this case. He is not fast, he is not slow, he’s just half—–fast.
I don’t know what happened, but the phrase “the range curve” should not be there. My fault with my apologies.
Grumpy
As we look at this document, yes, I said document, with text, called, The Constitution of the United States of America, we see many schools of thinking. Is this document a “Living Document”? What ever your answer, be ready to prove it by your actions. Many say they are strictly Constitutional, prove it. When I look at the Constitution, I have always stressed, before going to say were Constitutional, what does that really mean? Many has spoken and said, The Constitution of the United States is a textual document and The Supreme Court is limited in its power and authority, just like the Legislature and the Executive Branch. If we don’t think so, just take a look at the role of the Vice President of the United States. Under a strict Constitutional view, the Vice President of the United States has exactly 2 roles and no more. 1. He is to preside over the Senate of the United States and 2. He is to step into the role of the President of the United States, if for any reason, the President becomes incapacitated, those are the only two roles for the Vice President. He does not serve at the pleasure of the President, he serves in compliance with the Constitution, alone. Just like when the Supreme Court tries to expand its role, the same is true for the Vice President, when we see this type of behavior, we are watching someone who believes in a “Living Constitution”.This is the reason why I try to keep some kind of balance on the subject. There our many issues where people try to put all of their focus on just one branch or party.
Actually, Grumpy, it’s very easy. The Constitution means exactly what it says, in plain English, no more and no less.
JTG, Your right! This means the powers of the Executive Branch are also limited by the Constitution regardless of our “war footing”, we were not in a state of war! This can only happen, according to the Constitution, when there is a full Declaration of War. You must also realize, according to the Constitution, 9/11 was only an event in an ongoing event since the First Persian Gulf event. This will also mean George W. Bush was not a Constitutional War-Time President. According to the Constitution, our criteria that must be met, they were not met. This would be the Plain English Constitutional Understanding. It is up to the President of the United States to lead the Congress and the Nation into a Full Constitutional Declaration of War, nothing short of it