-
Global Warming on 15-Year Hold
April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Suddenly This Summer
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
-
FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
-
“Climate” and the Campaign
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Germany’s Green Bubble Follows Spain’s; Will Congress Waste More Billions on Ours?
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I know it’s MSNBC and everything, but I still had difficulty believing I actually witnessed this clip of a silly little man saying the Constitution is irrelevant and confusing because it’s, like, more than 100 years old.
That does seem to be the sort of thing only the very young might say. So long as they are also rather foolish.
So I did a quick search for ‘Ezra Klein graduated with degree in’, hoping against delicious hope he was some sort of classics major. Or something indicating this young feller had possibly been required to read other really, you know, old stuff like maybe the Gettysburg Address or the Bible or…oh, dear, did he just say what I think he said about the Koran? Maybe Burke (I kid). Marbury v. Madison. Or Robinson Crusoe (‘Friday’? What the hell kind of name is that? Oh. 1719. Nooo wuuunder.)
But his degree was in political science. So class assignments probably didn’t range far beyond reading the writings of 26 year-olds at the Washington Post, which he wanted to grow up to become when he was 26. And did!
Which I learned while so searching, when this post came up near the top. Watch Klein, then read this from a few months ago. You can almost imagine the author, today, saying “I almost wrote that he might say something remarkably stupid nicely proving beyond dispute and in one fell swoop my and the WaPo commenters’ point, like…well, this. But that seemed mean.”
Richard Baker| 12.30.10 @ 2:51PM
Funny how farmers, tradesmen, and the average American understood the Constitution when it first came out. Now, we've become SO nuanced that it is incomprehensible? Not saying much about his education at UCLA, does it?
Scott | 12.30.10 @ 3:39PM
As a political scientist, I take some exception to the characterization of my field. Looking back over readings I've assigned, with the exception of the textbooks themselves, most of the readings I've given my students are over 100 years old (actually, I'd say a plurality were over 150). And thinking back to my own education, I don't recall reading a lot of contemporary material -- in fact, I distinctly remember my one of my political philosophy profs disdaining anything written in that area in the 20th century (and having later taught contemporary political thought, I'm inclined to agree).
So, rather than maligning political science in general, I would encourage you to point the finger at UCLA. Or, even more likely, at Klein himself; having dealt with hundreds of students at numerous colleges, I have found very few who find the Constitution confusing -- and those who did were generally the sort who would cheat on tests and still manage to fail (true story).
Tom Osterman| 12.30.10 @ 3:41PM
Ever notice how liberals always assert the inadequacy/irrelevance of the Constitution without pointing out which parts turn it into junk? Could it be that this is their way of proving that they should have absolute power?
Stan Redmond| 12.31.10 @ 4:05PM
Never say never... You can find endless examples of liberals explaining which part of the Constitution are arcane and obsolete when refering to the 2nd amendment.
PattyMor| 12.30.10 @ 3:44PM
No, itsn't unreadable. Its corrupt judges who decide that they are going to rewite it on their own. So its not unreadable or not understandable, but those who declare themselves so much better that they are above it.
Richard Baker| 12.30.10 @ 5:10PM
Scott:
I agree with your concerns regarding your profession. It's just that putzes like Klein give political science a bad name and doesn't say much about his "education" at UCLA.
SC Mike| 12.30.10 @ 9:16PM
Iowahawk has administered just punishment to punk Klein:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/io.....rtant.html
Brutal...
handbags | 12.30.10 @ 9:40PM
thanks your share!
Nicholas Wilbur | 12.30.10 @ 9:40PM
Ezra Klein isn't wrong. He just failed to articulate the point, which is completely understandable for a Democrat.
Like many of the Republican Party’s tactics, waving the Constitution around is good politics, as it appeals to the masses who believe America is straying from the intentions of its Founding Fathers. But in practice, such histrionic displays of alleged patriotism will only further enrage the blindly faithful and context-averse followers of the GOP by giving Republicans a seemingly legitimate reason to block Democrat-sponsored legislation in the 112th Congress. http://bit.ly/ffJcRp
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.31.10 @ 9:49AM
Wilburrrrr,
I actually went to your website. Pretty good propaganda for teenagers.
You have stumbled into a room full of grown-ups here however.
I personally know how important "symbols" are.
Beginning a Congress by reading the "sociopolitical compact" with the States and the people, (uh, that is the constitution for you communists, pardon the shorthand), is entirely appropriate.
It is sorta' like re-chalking the base-lines before every baseball game so the out of bounds lines are not blurry.
Mr. Obama labeled me an enemy not too long ago.
...So an enemy I will be, to every usurpation you can imagine. I hope Republicans in the House feel the same way.
Wilburrr | 12.31.10 @ 1:10PM
This is nothing more than political theatre. As for your baseball reference (does that make politics easier to understand for you?) why is it that no member of Congress for 221 years has felt it necessary to read the Constitution aloud on the floor? Have we been so misguided all these years? Haha.
The GOP's nouveau wave of patriotism and pandering to Tea Partiers is just more smoke, mirrors & entertaining shadows on the wall.
GOP Theatre: Now Starring the U.S. Constitution –http://bit.ly/ffJcRp
old progrmr| 12.31.10 @ 3:07PM
Wilburrrr: "why is it that no member of Congress for 221 years has felt it necessary to read the Constitution aloud on the floor?"
It's rather obvious to most of us that it is about time it was read based upon the way our Imperial 111th Congress has violated it over and over again, as have previous Congresses of both parties. And, for your edification, America is certainly straying from the intentions of the founders. It is about time we take a little time to to break our headlong rush toward another failed socialist "utopia". Wilbur, basically I am getting damn tired of paying for all your free stuff.
Larry| 12.31.10 @ 5:02PM
Whether or not you think reading the Constitution is a "gimmick," it is clear that Ezra Klein is massively ignorant of the purpose of the Constitution, and simply buys hook-line-and-sinker the Wilsonian notion that the Constitution is an inconvenient obstacle to any kind of political action. Klein would actually prefer the Stalinist Soviet constitution of 1936, which guaranteed everything but meant nothing at all.
It is clear that at UCLA, he may not have learned anything about the limits of power, and how power, uncurbed and unrestrained, creates the kind of tyranny that is difficult to overcome - the tyranny of unchecked ambition, a tyranny where the personal preferences of the dictator trump everything else. This danger is part of what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent. If we ever forget that, we have lost what little freedom we now have left.
Klein, in the end, is nothing but a simpering, ignorant fool. He needs to go live in Chavez-land with the outs there to see what tyranny really means.
Richard Baker| 12.31.10 @ 10:29AM
Ken:
Amazing how these idiots such as Wilburrr find the defense of the Constitution a "histrionic display." I guess that he's unaware of the meaning of the word constitution. Note to Wilburrr: It's in West's Encyclopedia of American Law.
Ryan Colpaart | 12.31.10 @ 2:16PM
I've decide to utilize my marginal bully pulpit in defense of what Ezra Klein was implying. He obviously was not clear enough; perhaps an analogy would do the trick:
Ezra Klein in The Cross-Hairs of Right Wing Outrage
Larry| 12.31.10 @ 5:08PM
What laughable pap. See my reply to Wilbur above. He was not "clear enough" because he has a tremendous ignorance of the history and meaning of Constitutional language. A few courses in Constitutional law and history might clear that up for him.
And by the way, what is it about the younger folks these days that causes them to refuse to consider that old documents, or old principles, may actually have some merit? I would like to deposit all of you into the Soviet society of the 1930s for a few weeks, so you can see why unlimited, excessive government power is dangerous? Or perhaps even into the Soviet Gulag. None of you would survive very long.
Larry| 12.31.10 @ 5:17PM
Allow me to add: the fact that scholars disagree with some of the meanings of its provisions does not make it a "holy book" with ancient and mysterious contexts (e.g. the Bible). With work, one can arrive at the fair meaning of these provisions. What is more difficult is how to relate these meanings to today's political scene. Part of the problem is how Wilson, Roosevelt, and other liberals (especially on the Supreme Court) have so perverted the structure and meaning of Constitutional doctrine so as to effectively amended it by stealth. This is a large part of what Raoul Berger was talking about in his book of two decades ago, Government by Judiciary.
Liberals don't want to go through the conventional methods of amending the Constitution, because they know it is difficult to reach a consensus to radically change anything to meet their own policy preferences. Thus, beginning with the Progressive movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they created this doctrine involving the Constitution as "living document," and argued for a much more centralized government than was ever intended by the Founding Fathers as a result.
This revolution by stealth has resulted in the mess we have today. I, for one, am tired of the stealth. If you want to dramatically change this government, follow the amendment process. Otherwise, get the hell out of the way and let the rest of us sort this out. Liberals are all cowards in that respect, because their views would never stand scrutiny in a plebiscite over whether the Constitution should be scrapped and replaced in its entirety.
Richard Baker| 12.31.10 @ 2:28PM
Ryan:
So Klein can't take the "Right Wing Outrage"? Harry Truman had an expression, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I Survived Arlen Specter| 12.31.10 @ 2:42PM
Mr. Horner, I question your sanity & self respect for willfully subjecting yourself to the lunacy of MSLSD. MSLSD is to the insane on the left what heroin is to intravenous drug users. Dehumanizing.