The American Spectator : Time Magazine's Orwellian Constitution Story Refuted

Text Size

Media Matters

Time Magazine’s Orwellian Constitution Story Refuted

By Ken Blackwell & Ken Klukowski on 7.5.11 @ 6:08AM

The Founding document has never been more relevant.

Time magazine’s cover story shows the U.S. Constitution and asks, “Does it still matter?” Reading this story, we kept waiting for Emmanuel Goldstein to show up for the Two Minutes of Hate. It was difficult to discern whether we were reading Time, or Orwells’ 1984.

It portrays the Constitution as an outmoded document that we should ignore to whatever extent is expedient to pursue someone’s vision of a better society: “We cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to a future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, and evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

The story shows all sorts of poll questions that present a false choice, such as, “The 14th Amendment says that any person born in the U.S. automatically becomes a U.S. citizen… Should [it] be revised?” The Citizenship Clause says no such thing, because it adds that anyone “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is not a citizen.

That’s why children of foreign ambassadors, prisoner soldiers and heads of state born here do not become citizens. The question is how broad that “jurisdiction” clause is. Could Congress exclude illegal aliens? It’s an active debate in legal circles, with no clear answer.

Instead, the questions should have included: “Are you more interested in the Constitution today that you were four years ago?” “Do you agree or disagree with candidates discussing the Constitution more in their campaign speeches this year?” “Are you now aware that the Constitution only vests the federal government with power of specific areas of life, leaving the states sovereign to decide all other issues?”

Or questions on enduring constitutional principles. “Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s 1803 pronouncement that any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void?” “Every government officer (including every judge) takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Should they apply its original meaning to current challenges?”

Does the Constitution still matter? Look at huge crowds of Americans cheering at rallies, whether it’s a spending protest or a pro-life rally. It matters to them, and they vote.

The story was so riddled with distortions that it obscured its message. For example, it says we must raise the debt ceiling because, “the idea that we can default on our debt is not only reckless; it’s probably unconstitutional.” It twists a provision from the 14th Amendment that has nothing to do with the debt ceiling.

The reality is, revenue government collects every month so vastly exceeds our debt payments that we could easily meet our monthly obligations. We would just have to cut discretionary spending on other programs. But it’s deceptive to suggest that not raising the ceiling automatically causes default, and it’s wrong to suggest it’s unconstitutional.

The most disappointing part of the article mischaracterizes the Obamacare legal fight. It says Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring you to buy health insurance is constitutional because government takes your money in taxes and requires you to buy car insurance.

The writer obliviously ignores that the Constitution expressly creates a federal government of enumerated powers. The feds can tax you because of the Taxing Clause of the Constitution (though even then only four types of taxes are legal-not the mandate). And states have authority to make you buy car insurance under state police power, but if the feds required it, such a law would be illegal because the feds have no police power.

Since there is no Healthcare Clause in the Constitution, the feds try cramming it in the Commerce Clause. That’s the whole fight: Whether Congress can control your personal decisions whenever Congress declares such decisions impact interstate commerce.

Every decision in your life has some tangential relationship to interstate commerce. Does that mean the Constitution allows the government to control your every decision? It makes a mockery of the concept of limited government.

The story concludes, “The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.” The connotation is that we shouldn’t be too slavish in our fidelity to the Constitution.

Like the rest of this article, its conclusion misses the point. The Constitution serves the American people as an unbreakable constraint on those in power, dictating their duties and the limits on their authority. The Constitution serves We the People by requiring every government official to take an oath to obey its every word.

The picture art at the outset of Time’s story showed the Constitution cut in dozens of narrow vertical strips. Clearly it had been run through a paper shredder.

Evidently this is wishful thinking for some on the Far Left. The only problem is that it’s false. Interest in the Constitution is resurgent, and that renewed interest is the key to America’s renewal in our third century.

About the Author

Ken Blackwell, the former mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio is Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Platform Committee. He also serves on the boards of the Club For Growth and the National Taxpayers Union.

About the Author

Ken Klukowski is a fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

D. Singh| 7.5.11 @ 6:31AM

Sir

I think I now understand the strategy of the Left-liberals.

First you argue that the Constitution does not mean what it says; after having distorted the Rules you then argue that the democratic game is no longer playable – the only option then is to tear up the Rules (so bringing the ‘game’ of democracy to an end).

Result? Dictatorship by the Left-liberal elite.

As a schoolboy I was always taught that if you get a sum wrong then you retrace your steps, locate the error and fix the problem.

The Left-liberal approach seems to be that it is of no consequence as to what answer is arrived at as the Left-liberal sits on the commanding heights of morality teaching all others as mere pupils – and these mere pupils, by virtue of being pupils, are not in a position to mark their teachers’ work.

Alan Brooks| 7.5.11 @ 9:05AM

Your's is a more involved comment than most, Singh, more to it than the standard "Obama is a muslim socialist..."
Seven years ago it was "Bush is like Hitler";
the presidents change but the epithets remain.

masly | 7.6.11 @ 4:22AM

‘The two enemies of the people are criminals and government. So let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so that the second will not become the legal version of the first.’
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

MM| 7.5.11 @ 1:45PM

Thanks very much AS for removing the troll who posted lewd ads here daily on every thread.

Thank you for reading that email.

Alan Brooks| 7.5.11 @ 5:32PM

I read the entire piece in Time, and he is correct that the GOP would ignore War Powers if it helped their agenda. If Reagan or the Bushes had needed to circumvent it they would have done so.

DaveS| 7.5.11 @ 5:50PM

That's only an assertion; cannot think of one instance. Even Kucinich said Bush II got Congressional approval for 2003 Iraq- even with UN actionable resolutions in-hand.

No Hamilton| 7.5.11 @ 7:16AM

I just read a fascinating essay by historian PA Madison that should be required reading by every justice on the court describing the facts and history of the commerce clause, for which Marshall in Gibbon completely validates. Read it here:

http://federalistblog.us/2011/.....merce.html

Alan Brooks| 7.5.11 @ 9:08AM

it's a mixed bag, the Democratic Republicans favored France back then-- France, the sweet land of the guillotine and Robespierre.

Anthony| 7.5.11 @ 7:36AM

The "dicks" at Time Magazine are indeed living in their lefty Orwellian world.
Recently, their managing editor found out how his fellow lefties and Obozo operate when you fail to follow the party line.
His comment that Obozo was acting like a "dick" was spot on, as the petulent, woefully inadequate president, with zero experience, was beside himself because his economic policies aren't working, DUH!!!
Reprisal by Obozo was swift, as the Obozo administration made sure the message was received by its whores in the MSM. No criticism of Dear Leader will be tolerated!!!!
However, the whores in the MSM will not reflect on their folly of following this pathetic man and his philosophy, nor will they realize how far down the Orwellian path their leftism has taken them.
No, they are to wedded to the illusions they have built up over their heady '60s"reality" to acknowledge the fact that their entire lives have been built on a fradulent base.
Is is then so suprising that these morons would run a cover story that the Constitution is no longer relevant? After all, when you're in so deep, and have deluded yourself for decades, why not go for broke?
Fortunately, the Constitution will long outlive these pathetic fools, and Time Magazine will become a dusty relic of history.

DaveS| 7.5.11 @ 7:40AM

Yes, the Constitution is contrary to the expedient wishes of the unrestrained. The NYT staff and editorial leadership, collectively, can't shoulder Madison's wife's bra strap.

DaveS| 7.5.11 @ 7:42AM

Excuse me, the Times. The NYT reference is accidental but not entirely inaccurate. Apologies to ruffled NYT readers.

mames| 7.5.11 @ 4:37PM

The Constitution was written to be understood by prep school students and yet Time, (now a flyer rather than a magazine) doesn't get it. The more honest approach would have been to follow the law of the land and use the amendment process. But that would mean clarifying in writing how you would turn America into a purely collectivist country which would never get the votes needed to pass. But of course that would mean you support that the law is king rather the the editors at Time.

Anthony| 7.5.11 @ 7:56AM

P.S. I forgot to add how utterly delicious it is to see how Mr. Halperin and his fellow lefty fools over at Time, are so completely delusional, that they fail to see that the Constitution is the only thing protecting them from Obozo's storm troopers. Their willing participation in their own demise adds to this Orwellian nightmare.
It would be fitting if indeed the whores in the MSM found out just how relevant the Constitution is as they are dragged from behind their laptops!!!
One can only hope. See you boys at GITMO, the new home of Obozo's disidents!!

martin j smith| 7.5.11 @ 7:58AM

Its not only Time Magazine. I am really believing in a more purposeful organization ? But lets make it simple: The White House ?

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.5.11 @ 8:23AM

IF OBAMA IS RE-ELECTED...the Constitution will be enforced in the streets!

(actually in the tax revolt.) The answer is to simply have every producer...take an unpaid vacation and dry up tax revenues.

ds80| 7.5.11 @ 12:49PM

Lefty libs scoff at Atlas Shrugged, avoiding the question: are you a looter, a moocher, or a producer?

D. Singh| 7.5.11 @ 8:44AM

Mr Anthony seems to have read Orwell’s 1984 (I think Animal Farm is superior):

‘P.S. I forgot to add how utterly delicious it is to see how Mr. Halperin and his fellow lefty fools over at Time, are so completely delusional, that they fail to see that the Constitution is the only thing protecting them from Obozo's storm troopers. Their willing participation in their own demise adds to this Orwellian nightmare.’

The delegated sovereignty of the Constitution is all that is holding back the forces of Left-liberalism.

I have said ‘the delegated sovereignty’ of the Constitution.

If the Left-liberals do distort the Constitution for their own Soviet ends, what then for the American people who love freedom, security and liberty?

Ultimate sovereignty lies in the bosom of the American people.

‘This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.’

President Lincoln 1809-1865

scotchieguy| 7.5.11 @ 10:16AM

I think Jefferson uttered the same words.

Larry| 7.5.11 @ 9:03AM

The Constitution is like a set of rules by which the federal government is supposed to operate. The progressive, socialist and their scummy ilk have time and again told us that it's a "living document". In other words, those rules can be changed in the middle of the game on someone's whim. When I try to explain this lib scum with whom I'm forced to deal, I try to dumb it down to a level that they might understand. For example, suppose a baseball umpire thought that four strikes was more fair than three? Suppose while waiting for change in a store, the cashier devised his own arithmetical system and gave you less change than you expected? They never get it though, no matter how simple I try to make it for them.

From the bit that I read in Time before getting disgusted, the author of the article, didn't get it either. It was to be expected though.

A. C. Santore| 7.5.11 @ 10:41AM

Excellent post.

However, when you're dealing with a closed mind - or worse, a fanatical closed mind - you cannot possibly dumb it down far enough. Nice try, though.

C Smith| 7.5.11 @ 9:24AM

God has a law, and as far as the constitution is consistent with that law, it has the following in common:

"... we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine" (1Timothy 1:8-10).

Margie| 7.5.11 @ 4:33PM

Ah, yes. And how does one enforce the law against a liar? A slanderer?

blackwatch| 7.5.11 @ 7:32PM

with a rock. applied with force.

Conservative View| 7.5.11 @ 9:45AM

FIRST GOD THEN THE CONSTITUTION

I suspect that liberals want the Consitution dead every bit as much as they want Gods demise. The Constitution is a document that protects individual rights. For the left, this is a constant road block to their agenda. For the left individual rights stand in the way of "social rights" or more correctly, the rights of the mob.

A mans relationship with his God is individual. It is him, it is his God, and little stands between. Ultimately a mans moral decsions rest on his understanding of the moral edicts of his God. Be he Christian, Jewish, Muslem or anything else, when he prays, it is his praier to his God.

Our Constitution is for the individual. The individual has freedom of relegion, freedom to read a press unhindered by a government, to speak his mind freely. He has the individual right to chose his representive. The Constitution protects the individual from the ravages of Government. And there in lies the rub for liberals.

Listen to liberals closely. They never speak for the individual. They only speak for the mob. Be that mob a union, a race, a subset of wealth, the poor, it is the rights of the mob over the rights of the individual. State after State gives unions the right to compell a worker to join their union. State after State compells an individual to surrender to the mob. Of course the Constitution is a dead document for liberal thinkers, it stands in the way of their rule by mob.

We in America are now confronted as never before with the untimate choice. Do we stand for individual rights, or surrender to the rule of the mob? Do we stand for a Constitution that is the bulwark against the tide of mob rule, or do we watch as it runs through the shreader?

God isn't dead. Neither is Constitution. Not so long as we defend our morals and ideals. Never before has the Constitution been under such attack as it is right now. Never before, not even upon the beaches of Normandy, have we been required to fight so hard in defending it.

Al Adab| 7.5.11 @ 11:16AM

There does exist a moral order in the universe which all the cries of The Left to the contrary still governs our relationships with one another. Proper government recognizes and encourages that state of being rather than opposes it. Keep posting.

IzeHavitt| 7.10.11 @ 11:00PM

Should we conclude that the Left are enemies of the Constitution? Is this a prosecutable offense?

MATT M.| 7.5.11 @ 9:48AM

The Constitution is what the SCOTUS says it is, That is why it is vitally important to replace BHO next year,

Conservative View| 7.5.11 @ 10:45AM

Matt, you could not be more correct.

Al Adab| 7.5.11 @ 11:14AM

It seems to have come to that although it was never intended to be so. We should look to the debates on the Constitution and certainly not Time magazine for our understanding. Yes, in light of upcoming Court nominees, it is absolutely critical to end this centralizing regime.

Vern Crisler | 7.5.11 @ 2:53PM

Actually, the Constitution is what those who ratified it thought it meant, as James Madison pointed out.

YeloStalyn| 7.5.11 @ 4:47PM

Jefferson said at one point much the same thing. He said that when the court was unsure what the original intent was, they were to seek the primary sources of the creators to find out because there was pleanty of letters/articles/discussions available to do just that. Oddly enough... he was right! We have simply chosen to ignore him.

Gary| 7.5.11 @ 9:55AM

I wonder if the dudes at Time have such a screw the Constitution attitude when it comes to the 14th amendment protections, free speech, the press, etc.? They like to cherry pick what provisions are dear to their heart and ignore others that protect property rights and limit the power of the federal government. It's pure BS.

George S| 7.5.11 @ 10:01AM

A better poll question to ask:

"Should your bank be able to change the interest rate on your mortgage any time they like, in case "conditions change" and the bank needs more money?"
-------
What the kids in this country need to learn is that the Constitution is a meaningless document when not looked upon in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration set us free from tyranny and the Constitution was written to prevent the return of that tyranny in the form of a national government. Pull the two documents away from each other, and the Constitution can be eviscerated by the clever wordsmiths -- 'general welfare' and 'equal protection' can now become a vehicle for perpetuating government growth.

The Constitution is not a limitation on the people's sensible future, but on the government's ability to take away your neighbor's freedom in exchange for your newly created entitlement to health care.

Brubaker| 7.5.11 @ 10:07AM

For decades the left worshiped the Constitution; now they argue it's no longer significant or valid.

What's changed? The conservative-leaning majority on the US Supreme Court is what's changed.

The Constitution was just wonderful as long as SCOTUS could be counted upon to find ever more "rights" in the "penumbra" of the Constitution. Since such rulings are highly unlikely with today's court, the left has suddenly adopted a deep disdain for the Constitution.

If the makeup of the SCOTUS should ever shift back to the left, the left will find great utility in a newly restored reverence for the Constitution. Ensuring that does not happen is the most important reason for voting Obama out of office.

scotchieguy| 7.5.11 @ 10:27AM

It is kind of like the art of compromise. Compromise is only desired by the left when they are no longer in power. When they are in power, there is to be no compromise--ie, shoving Obamacare down our throats. In a word, the left wants to have its cake and eat it too. This applies as well to the Constitution. Essentially, the left consists of emotionally crippled adult children.

scotchieguy| 7.5.11 @ 10:21AM

Here is my favorite part of the article: "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so." Fortunately, there were dozens of comments in the online version attempting to straighten out the author on the meaning of the tenth amendment. Maybe there is still hope.

YeloStalyn| 7.5.11 @ 11:56AM

IX and X Amendment anyone? I guess libs can't count that high so they never get to those.

PolishKnight| 7.5.11 @ 10:35AM

Nobody noticed the obvious irony that it's Time that's no longer relevant. Does anyone still read the rag? Even my dentists' office no longer has it.

The left's "living constitution" argument is disingenuous like the rest of their philosophy. The microsecond they think their precious rights are being violated, they scream about the constitution. I love to respond to them that if big brother and big government are their friends, then how can they hate GW Bush and his so-called "illegal" war in Iraq?

MM| 7.5.11 @ 1:36PM

Polish, I posted similar below before reading the (your) comments.

"Ever wonder why the left doesn't teach history? It's one disaster after another for them" (James Lewis on Krugmann)

solidground| 7.5.11 @ 10:53AM

I suspect the the writer is a product of the public school system and also one of the Ivy League cathedrals of leftist indoctrination. It is entirely illogical for anyone who has studied American history, the making of the Constitution and its impact upon national and world events over the past 235 years to conclude that the Constitution is no longer relevant. In fact, quite the opposite is true, and in spades. Only a fatuous, elitist leftist engaging in extreme self-conceit and living the fantasy of self-appointed intellectual and moral superiority would engage in such a contradictory argument. But then, Time Magazine has served as little more than a coloring book for leftist kooks for several decades now, so what more should we expect?

Al Adab| 7.5.11 @ 11:11AM

Perhaps, to simplify, it might wiser for us to rely on the plain language of the document, the notes from the state ratifying conventions, The Federalist and anti-federalist writings in order to understand what the authors intended.

Clearly what they did not intend was the creation of a sovereignty which could trump the l0cal and state governments by creating a centralized authority. The 10th amendment is in response to the anti-federalist concerns. We went off track when the citizens started becomming beholden to the national government for their incomes, security and jobs. That danger was foreseen by Toqueville and some of the anti-federalists, notably "Brutus" who expressed that concern about the nature of Americans who "wanted it now". Our desire for instant gratification has led us to this pass.

We must empower the local and state governments to act more readily on our behalf and not so quickly turn to the national government to assist. The national government should allow the atates to act in their individual intersts and not oppose them, in the name of centralization, when they do. That is the meaning of a Federal Republic.

YeloStalyn| 7.5.11 @ 11:58AM

It is very sad that we, as a nation, know more about our president than we do our governor. And in the case of Zero... that's scary since we don't know anything about him in the first place.

Ross| 7.5.11 @ 11:57AM

I’m a British born Canadian Citizen but even I see the importance of the American Constitution! I remember one of the leftists Profs I had going on this screed where he claimed, “conservatism is a belief in moral absolutes and an adherence to some sacred text.” He continued, “Now I ask you, is there any better way to oppress people?” Despite his rhetorical implications to the contrary, the answer of course is “Yes, there’s a much better way to oppress people, a society which believes it can change morals and laws at a whim will be far more oppressive than one restrained by immutable principles of justice.” Liberal anti-constitutionalist will object and point to the fact that many American founding fathers owned slaves and that the abolition of slavery came through progress not a belief in absolutes but of course it was a commitment to the immutable, principle that all men are created equal that eventually led to the destruction of slavery. Though I do find it weird when some Americans make a virtual religion out of the founding fathers, it is of supreme importance that you don’t let the social engineers destroy your constitution or warp it’s meaning. Don’t let the likes of John P Holdren, hammer through forced abortions as something constitutionally viable. Don’t let the likes of the late George Bernard Shaw abolish the constitution completely. The reason the French Revolution was such a mess is they kept changing their constitution every time it struck their fancy. Fight and keep the freedom your forbearers fought for alive! If you fall the rest of the Western world will almost certainly follow.

PolishKnight| 7.5.11 @ 12:27PM

It's useful to keep in mind that slavery has never been formally abolished but rather redefined. The state reserves the right to "involuntary servitude" to satisfy military staffing requirements (a draft.) In addition, child-support obligations can require forced labor.

The civil war was sparked by the issue of slavery, but the primary reason was retaining control of territory. It has left a permanent scar on the nation's constitutional principles in that it created a justifiable war of conquest (Iraq/Kuwait anyone?), didn't really settle racism (civil rights didn't take place until the 1960's and then just instituted reverse-Jim Crow against white males) and established federalism as a tool to get things done.

Vern Crisler | 7.5.11 @ 3:26PM

PolishKnight, that's a pretty bizarre view of slavery and the Civil War. For the most part, involuntary servitude (prison) is a result of behavior. Chattel slavery in America was based almost exclusively on race. The first slaves to work on tobacco plantations in America were English whites (soldiers defeated in wars), but eventually white slaves were replaced by Africans exclusively.

Slavery was formally abolished by the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Yes, the Civil War was sparked by slavery, but it was not about "retaining control of territory." The problem was that the South wanted to extend slavery to the territories and the North didn't. The South seceded when Lincoln was elected president, not because the South lost control of any territory.

In addition, the Civil War did not leave a scar on our constitutional principles. There was no change in our constitutional principles -- our federal system -- after the Civil War. That happened by Supreme Court decree in the late 1940s.

True, the Civil War and Civil War amendments didn't get rid of racism, but much of the reverse racism in our day is due to post 1940s judicial activism.

Additionally, the Iraq war was not a war of conquest but one of liberation.

Finally, the Civil War did not establish "federalism as a tool to get things done." The Constitution did that.

Stormzeye| 7.5.11 @ 3:36PM

Polish Knight,
I disagree with your statement that "slavery" is the same thing as "involuntary servitude". The owner of a slave has complete right over the body, life and liberty of the slave. You are exaggerating when you equate the two.
Further, the Mexican War was a war of conquest, not the Civil War.
Also, racism is entirely different than slavery. Though notions of racial superiority may lead some to feel justified in enslaving a particular race it can, and does, exist in the absence of slavery.
Federalism is not a "tool to get things done", it's a tool to prevent National Government. Unfortunately slavery gave the concept of States' Rights a bad name. I think it was Lincoln's assassination and the tragic vengeance that followed in the form of Reconstruction that lead to a stronger central government. Though I take your points, I think you verge on hyperbole in your overreaching.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.5.11 @ 6:35PM

Never thought I'd live to see the day that I'd compliment Stormzeye but, in his corrections to the Polish Knight who regularly and inaccurately pontificates on history, he's absolutely correct.

I guess that's the distinction between wrong and wrong-er.

Appleby| 7.6.11 @ 7:24AM

Lots of white folks came to America as indentured servants, and the terms were not always what they seemed once those folks landed in the New World. Many of my southern relatives were sharecroppers, which is a form of involuntary servitude.

And I believe that the draft was abolished some time ago, as there is no need for cannon fodder in modern warfare, and America gets plenty of volunteers of the sort that are needed. In fact, the best result of the abolition of the draft was a steep decline in anti-war protests. In the end, the majority of the Hey Hey Ho Ho crowd was concerned with saving its own backside rather than enfolding the enemy in a group hug.

Drunken Sailor| 7.5.11 @ 12:28PM

Excellent post sir, to bad a large portion of our own citizens did not learn the same critical thinking skills you so obviously picked up. Bravo Zulu!!

Anthony| 7.5.11 @ 12:06PM

Ross, An extremely thoughtful and well written post. My compliments.

Tex Expatriate| 7.5.11 @ 12:42PM

Time Magazine has become America's Pravda. Its editors and writers simple propaganda hacks.

Al Adab| 7.5.11 @ 3:44PM

The old Russian wag was, "There is no Isvestia in Pravda and no Pravda in Isvestia."

scotchieguy| 7.6.11 @ 12:11AM

Wasn't this the rag that said, "Be afraid. Be very afraid?" I think it was in re to global warning--errr, "climate change." My girlfriend subscribes. I consider each issue an unintended form of SNL entertainment in print. Yes, they have become a caricature of themselves, like the NYTimes. Strange times, indeed. Most peculiar, mama!

MM| 7.5.11 @ 1:30PM

What is their actual circulation? How much readership do they actually have?

PE| 7.5.11 @ 3:51PM

Does anybody still read Time?

JOHN| 7.5.11 @ 4:09PM

Very well stated. Should be stamped in the foreheads (in reverse) of all congressmen, so they can carry a mirror to be reminded their power is limited. I haven't yet seen the force that can constrain them, but I do hope to live so long.

Chuck| 7.5.11 @ 4:45PM

You got to give the devil his due in this case the left using subterfuge to twist and turn the meaning of the constitution and using liberal federal courts to implement left-wing policy. Instead of a direct assault destroying the constitution, piece by piece, court decision after court decision, generation after generation until the constitution loses its entire meaning and reason for existence hence a constitution convention ironically enough allowed for in the constitution to change it. With a new constitution written by liberals Orwell's predictions come true and goodbye to the United States.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.5.11 @ 6:31PM

I believe it was one of your Right-Wing Supreme Court Justices (Alito? Kennedy? Does it matter?) who proclaimed the Constitution to be "dead, dead, dead."

How do you square with that one, bub?

W| 7.5.11 @ 6:48PM

right, state the authority for this statment, if it exists. i bet the sentence preceeding this quotation stated something along the lines of "if we do ................, then the consitution is dead ,dead, dead."

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.5.11 @ 7:51PM

How do you live with yourself and be so consistently wrong, W? Try this - http://video.search.yahoo.com/.....rt+justice

And, I'll save you the effort, no, it wasn't in the context you mention.

W| 7.6.11 @ 11:56AM

Right, we will change your name to Wrong.
Thanks for the cite, I, unlike you, viewed and heard the interview of Justice Scalia. You left out the key words: Scalia said, "the constitution I INTERPRET is dead..' You left out the words I INTERPRET. Scalia explained that the consitution has been damaged by the theory that it is a "living" document that changes with the times, but he believes it is "dead" meaning the constitution has a fixed meaning and does not evolve with the times.

I do not know whether you lied or are just lazy and stupid. Since you are a liberal lefty given to a bumper sticker method of analysis, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just lazy. Go hear it in its entirety, and don't just look at the headline of "dead dead dead".

skip| 7.6.11 @ 1:49PM

A poster with the moniker 'TheRightIs AnythingBut' is easily, effortlessly, exposed as an idiot posting nothing but stupid lies. Who could possibly predict such a thing?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.6.11 @ 2:27PM

A poster with the moniker skip is easily, effortlessly, exposed - no wait, let's check out the dictionary definition of "skip."

Right.

Skip as in easily skipped over, as in having no significance. Got it.

W| 7.6.11 @ 5:46PM

Right/Wrong, why not stop the snarky comments and admit you were wrong on Justice Scalia

skip| 7.8.11 @ 1:21PM

It is significant the idiot posting nothing but stupid lies easily skipped right over that. Who could possibly predict such a thing?

blackwatch| 7.5.11 @ 7:48PM

The Right,

The Constitution is dead,dead,dead----as in it is not a living breathing document which any county putz judge in Wisconsin can interpret any way she feels.

That Square enough for you?

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.5.11 @ 7:54PM

Nope, just cuz you say so don't make it so. Try again using logic and/or sources. But - hey- thanks for playing and call again.

And what do you have against the Wisconsin court system?

Stormzeye| 7.5.11 @ 11:52PM

Right, How can a liberal/progressive like yourself trust a conservative majority on the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution any way it sees fit to comport with "evolving standards" of decency. You wouldn't trust them to interpret the Constitution any more than we Conservatives would trust your fellow travelers to do the same. Therefore we believe that the Constitution is not subject to the whims of each generation's view of the world. To call it "dead" as Scalia did on the YouTube clip you cite was simply an example dramatic license.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.6.11 @ 11:44AM

Stormzeye, please get your hearing checked. Seriously, I worry about you when you're driving that you won't hear that oncoming train. I saw and heard nothing in Scalia's answer that even hinted at dramatic license.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.6.11 @ 2:36PM

The thing is, Stormzeye, I do prefer a conservative bench. To my mind, the Warren court went way beyond the bounds of what the Supreme Court should have done.

But I prefer a conservative if it be an intelligent, well-sourced, and contemplative conservative bench. Certainly Alito, Roberts, and Scalia qualify as such. Kennedy scares me some. Thomas is a non-thinking, knee-jerk jurist who should scare everyone, regardless of political persuasion.

And I genuinely wrestle with this issue of "dead" versus "alive." I get the idea of "original intent." To me, it's demonstrably true that the framers were amazing in anticipating as much as they did. But they couldn't have anticipated it everything the American future held.

Take what may seem a trivial example of intellectual property - a drawing. Certainly understandable and a standard part of American culture in the last quarter of the 18th Century. And certainly they could see defending copyright and similar issues. But how possibly could they see the implications of photocopying that drawing for a high school social studies class and the ability to "photoshop" that drawing into something that profits someone other than the original artist. If the Constitution be "dead" from that perspective, how does it apply at all?

And please no use of "fungible." Doesn't apply.

W| 7.6.11 @ 5:51PM

Kennedy is not conservative, he is the "moderate" swing vote. Kennedy was appointed by Reagan after the Dems, especially the moral Ted Kennedy, savaged a true, brillian conservative: Judge Robert Bork.
I agree the Court should be conservative, but not in the political sense. It should not make social policy, and should respect the laws passed by Congress, which means the people. It should not declare laws unconstitutional because they believe the are smarter and would pass better laws.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.6.11 @ 6:05PM

Careful there, W, you and I are dangerously close to agreeing on something - that of the proper conduct of the Supreme Court. I will give you a chance to revisit your point of view and find a way for us to disagree.
Note: that's a gentle rib, not sarcasm.

I get your final comment as well but isn't law, in its ultimate sense, making "social policy"? I don't mean in the cases where courts, past and present, have outrageously ignored discernible Congressional and Presidential intent. And please agree with me that not all laws are clear at all in terms of intent. Take the recent 2nd Amendment decision whose title escapes me at the moment. Doesn't that decision make "social policy"?

As for Bork - he didn't help himself at all.

W| 7.6.11 @ 7:37PM

R, all laws do make social policy, that is the reason judges should not "make law." The legislature makes law. Of course, judges have to interpret laws, and many laws are not clear. But there are rules of construction, such as to read the language of the law in its entirety, to find the intent and purpose of the law, to look at precedent, and to give words their plain meaning. There are others, but those are the main points I can think of now.
The constitution, especially the bill of rights, is subject to interpretation because in many sections it uses general words that we have to apply to specific conduct. The First amendment has spawned an entire library. The Fourt amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. What is reasonable or unreasonable? The Second amendment will also create a lot of litigation. I believe it guarantees a private right to bear arms, but are there any reasonable restrictions that a court will approve?
Did you know that the Bill of Rights originally applied to restrict only the federal government, and it was the Supreme Court that ruled that the 14th amendment requires that most of the Bill of Rights apply to the states (cities,counties) because those rights are incorporated in the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th? that is one of the issues about the Second amendment. So yeah, the courts make policy. Should they? In many cases it is inevitable. and not always good. The supreme court ruled in Dred Scott that a slave was personal property as a way to rule that a federal law that provided that a slave became free when he entered a free stat did not apply. The supreme court also ruled in Plessy that a local law prohibiting segregation on buses was unconstitutional on the theory of separate but equal.
Sorry about being so long winded. I do not mind agreeing with true liberals as i used to share the same beliefs in my youth, and still share some. But it seems the Dems today are not really liberal, they are statists, authoritarian, big government, the opposite of the old, true liberals.

Tom| 7.5.11 @ 7:02PM

Clearly the constitution matters. The bigger questions now who will limit the rapacious business practices that have created profound distortions in virtually every aspect of the country's life under the rubric of "freedom"?

Government oversight is suddenly "socialism"; pharmeceutical companies undermined the healthcare debate and Medicare with their ruinous practices; corporate power girded by the conservative wing of the Supreme Court protects limitless campaign spending as "freedom of expression" leading to distorted, misinformation campaigns; we won't even begin to talk about the toll militarism - the new "political correctness" has played in American life - not legitimate military need - but the wind-up dolls who "retire" and become consultants for arms companies.

Suddenly conservative freedom means 'license" to do anything one damned-well pleases

Truth to Power| 7.5.11 @ 7:11PM

You blew it,Tom. You should have voted for Nader. He wouldn't have been a closet militarist or bent over for the pharmaceutical companies or supported those wind up toy soldiers. You will have another opportunity to do the right thing in 2012. Don't screw it up again.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.5.11 @ 9:32PM

Yo, Truth. I was intrigued by your taunt, on another post, that Benjamin Franklin was anti-Quaker or at least harbored some anti-Quaker sentiments and had published same.

I was intrigued so, unlike the luminaries who infest these postings, I went to H.,W. Brands, "The First American." Granted, I didn't re-read word for word and it's the only Franklin biography I have but I find no such sentiment or statement.

Cite your sources or be silent. Come to think of it, silent is good. As in silent worship that we Quakers practice and wait for the Light Within to inform before speaking.

D. Singh| 7.6.11 @ 4:45AM

What a sad state Quakerism has descended to: silence.

The original Quakers were so called because when they preached their hearers reported that the very ground shook (quaked).

And ‘the Light Within’?

I wonder just which spirit or spirits speak through that.

For Christ’s sake (and I mean that with all reverence): do not procrastinate for one moment and effect your escape.

POST American| 7.5.11 @ 10:43PM

A thorough housecleaning of our Christian
religious establishment.

Expose and hurl the Rockefeller EUGENICS
front 'Council of Churches' and see the ultra-rich,
TAX FREE Foundations audited, exposed and
dismantled with warm, warm, warm prosecution
for over a century of staged depressions, panics,
cultural subversion programs, to say nothing of
world wars and revolutions --each and every facet
cunningly 'EUGENICS friendly'.

Really kiddies, an inquest and tribunal on the
scale of Nuremberg is urgently called for.

REALLY

NO JOKE

Wayne | 7.5.11 @ 10:44PM

If the constitution is dead, then Obama is not the President. That's a bad thing?

Truth to Power| 7.5.11 @ 10:59PM

Ben thought they were phonies. Try Ben's autobiography, phony boy. You haven't remained silent long enough and you like to read poor historians as well. With a real book it would be good to read more thoroughly than you do Obama talking points. You Quakers are a nasty crew, so much hate. With the blood of 50 million abortions all over yourselves, your hearts have been made very hard. By the way infest is a harsh verb to describe what you do here. I prefer to think that you are in charge of improving conservative morale by exposing them to the foolishness of liberal reactionaries. Thanks so much. Return to being silent if you must.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.6.11 @ 6:07PM

By what basis or objective measure do you diss H.W. Brand as a "poor historian"?

D. Singh| 7.6.11 @ 3:30AM

Sir

Every patriotic American must arise and defend the Constitution:

‘The two enemies of the people are criminals and government. So let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so that the second will not become the legal version of the first.’

Thomas Jefferson

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.6.11 @ 8:14AM

D. Singh - Your citing of the original derivation of "Quaker" is correct.

Your understanding of Quaker worship and doctrine (although most of us would be uncomfortable with such a confining word) is bafflingly ignorant.

Study further before you speak.

TheRightIsAnythingBut| 7.6.11 @ 8:20AM

Okay, Truth. I'll check out his autobiography. Fair enough.

Your point is well taken and then you bring up abortion? Now that's a leap of Orwellian proportions or may Palin proportions.

As for being full of hate, again your ignorance is showing, almost as bad a D. Singh.

So off to the library - ya know, that place that doesn't have coloring books.

weddingdress | 7.7.11 @ 5:18AM

Felix| 12.17.11 @ 8:26AM

When 90% of government operates outside of the constitution, it would seem that the constitution is already dead. We need to RESTORE constitutional government. Most of governement is made up of incorporated government entities where one is assumed to be in "voluntary compliance" with. This is regarded as a contractual obligation and is considered a civil matter, with criminal penalties if one doesn't "voluntarily" comply. With 2 million pages in the Code of Federal Regulations, there is not one person in this country who could not be convicted of a felony. See "One Nation Under Arrest...".