You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
WaPo's Ezra Klein: Constitution "Confusing" Because It's 100 Years Old
2010-12-31
"My friends on the right don't like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written 100 years ago, when America had thirteen states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it."
"What do you mean 'we', kemosabe?"
Posted by:Beavis

#19  Ezra Klein is the only "intellectual" whose practical IQ (as opposed to "absolute" IQ) is measured in negative numbers on the Kelvin scale.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2010-12-31 19:36  

#18   Why is his opinion worth a bucket of warm spit?

Well. Rob, it isn't, becuz the bucket of spit (warm or cold) is the end product showing achievement even of trivial pursuit. Whereas, Ezra is volume of mass achieving perfect vacuum.
Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839   2010-12-31 17:40  

#17  I'm still hunting for a reason why anyone pays attention to Klein. He's a 26-year-old, brainless twat. Why is his opinion worth a bucket of warm spit?
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2010-12-31 17:19  

#16  The communist manifesto is over 150 years old (1848), but I bet Klein knows it by heart.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-12-31 15:14  

#15  See, that is where Iowahawk is brilliant - went right on past the baffling ignorance and closed 20s 19s 18s in one round, off handed.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2010-12-31 13:30  

#14  Compare the Constitution to any piece of legislation passed by Congress in 2010. Which is less confusing, Ezra?
Posted by: Mercutio   2010-12-31 13:23  

#13  That Iowahawk article is hilarious..
Posted by: john frum   2010-12-31 12:50  

#12  The US constitution is one of the shortest, and clearest, in the world. Klein's problem is what is in it, not the clarity.
Posted by: john frum   2010-12-31 12:48  

#11  As my dad said, "They lived it."

Once again the libs don't understand human nature.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2010-12-31 12:27  

#10  The constitution was "Discovered"?(and he says he gets 4.0 grades, I'd flunk him on basic english)
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2010-12-31 11:47  

#9  The weasel Klein has changed the reference to the date of the Constitution.

I wrote this yesterday as a comment at Eyeblast.TV, which was the first site to host the video for ridicule:

Let's challenge Mr. Klein to work through his position to its logical conclusions:

1) no document over 100 years old is understandable. Throw out all law, contracts, books and writings done prior to 1910. I'd start the burning with Das Capital. Make sure your gentle Muslim friends understand that the Quran is right out...

2) propose a new constitution. Make sure you stipulate that it's good for, at a maximum, 100 years, since we wouldn't want to encumber future generations after that. Start with a preamble (I've always been fond of 'We the people...' but wherever you want to go, Ezra) and work your way to the end. No, you can't use the old Soviet constitution as a model.

3) let's challenge writings that are under 100 years old while we're at it. I suggest we examine such sage sources as the Huffington Post.
Posted by: Steve White   2010-12-31 11:23  

#8  His position is understandable. The Capital is more that a 100 years old---and I'm yet to meet a lefty who really understands it.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2010-12-31 11:23  

#7  Haha, Love Iowahawk - hilarious.

Actually I'll take the higher learning of the Founders - I.E. James Madison and Governour Morris who wrote the lion's share of the U.S. Const. over any 99% of poly sci pseudo-intellectuals at today's so called elite universities. (Madison took much inspiration from George Mason during the Bill of Rights phase).

What idiot's like Klein don't realize is that principles are transcendant and irrespective of time or social expedience. The founders knew what tyranny was or could be. Today's cabal of pseudo-intellectual circle-jerkers have no idea.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2010-12-31 10:23  

#6  ..it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it."

Except it has a amending process that allow the country to alter it. It's been done numerous times. However, it requires more than simple 'consent' to make those alterations. Ever since the Equal Rights Amendment failed to get that level of consent, the Left has decided that the whole thing needs to be done away with in words and deeds. If this country ever gets a Franco or Pinochet, the Left will come to painfully understand why you don't remove the very safeguards of the thing that while they inhibit getting things done you want, also protect your posterior from even greater evils.
Posted by: P2kontheroad   2010-12-31 09:56  

#5  Remember that Ezra Klein was the genius behind JournoList, the epitome of today's Potemkin Village school of MSM 'journalism'.
Posted by: ryuge   2010-12-31 09:49  

#4  Iowahawk tears him a new one
Posted by: Beavis   2010-12-31 09:44  

#3  Is it too late to put a law in that if you are going to write about something for public consumption that you at least know what the fuck you are talking about? That violates the First Amendment? Damn. Just shoot her for craven stupidity then. It is a danger to the general population.
Posted by: DarthVader   2010-12-31 09:41  

#2  100 years ago? Really?
How about admitting you were shooting spit wads in Am History and having your dad buy good grades? It's quite obvious you never read any of the material and still haven't.
Posted by: Water Modem   2010-12-31 09:39  

#1  "...it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it."

Only because you don't want to hear the answers, you dumb sh@t. The Constitution was written by men of what was for the time, high learning (but not the best; only a few of the Founders were college grads in the sense we understand it), but they knew that the people who would most be affected by it would be men and women of only the most basic schooling - or none at all. They therefore wrote it so that even if a citizen had to have it read to them, they could grasp the concepts and apply them. Or change them, if they wanted to.

I suspect Mr. Klein fears that basic premise more than anything else - if Americans could actually hear the Constitution again, just the simple words on the pages without the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' that it has been saddled with,they would run people like him out of town on a rail.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2010-12-31 09:39  

00:00