• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ezra klein 'constitution has no binding power on anything'

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative



Breaking news! MSNBC has lost it! Ezra Klein? What a joke....But this is how this batch of libs thinks....The constitution is outdated and too hard to understand....Hmmmm....Let's see, it was written in English wasn't it?

These people are dangerous. IMHO.

Oh, and here is more condescending from the esteemed Mr. Klein....That is if you are smart enough to read it.....

Ezra Klein - Yes, the Constitution is binding


j-mac
 
It's our founding document, not a spell that makes the traitors among us glow green. It's also, I noted, a completely nonbinding act: It doesn't impose a particular interpretation of the Constitution on legislators, and will have no practical impact on how they legislate.

I didn't read the whole website, but that sounds different than what he said on the video... There it sounds like he is saying the GOPs act is nonbinding.. not that the Constitution is nonbinding

I kind of agree with him that it will not affect how they legislate either... I think they'll read it out loud and act like they did a great thing, but then they'll go back to business as usual.

But personally, I'd rather see them read the Constitution out loud than read some part of the bible... lol
 
After watching this clip, it is painfully obvious to me that Klein meant that the reading of the Constitution was non-binding, which is absolutely true.

The title of this thread and the spin put on Klein's words are nothing but lies, spread by pundits who think we're too stupid to understand the man's words in context.
 
Last edited:
Don't jump the gun on this one:
He's not saying that "The Constitution has no binding power"
What he is saying is that "Reading it out loud has no binding power"

Ok - so strike on that one, his "#1 point" : it's a non-issue.

More so interesting is his 2nd point: that the text of the Constitution is confusing and was written more than 100 years ago. . . well - I disagree. I've read it numerous times and have applied it frequently and find it very easy to follow. It's a very plain and cut and dry document - nothing fancy :shrug:

If he can't read and understand it then he needs to truck on back to Kindergarten and start all over.

there are some parts of it that are ambiguous and that no one can agree on *what* it's suppose to mean - but those are just a few phrases and it's not like it was lost in time - it NEVER made any sense in these few areas.

But that can't be applied generally to the entire thing.
 
Last edited:



Breaking news! MSNBC has lost it! Ezra Klein? What a joke....But this is how this batch of libs thinks....The constitution is outdated and too hard to understand....Hmmmm....Let's see, it was written in English wasn't it?

These people are dangerous. IMHO.

Oh, and here is more condescending from the esteemed Mr. Klein....That is if you are smart enough to read it.....

Ezra Klein - Yes, the Constitution is binding


j-mac


The man clarified what he meant on his washingtonpost column. What exactly still bothers you about it? He clearly did not mean that the constitution is not binding, but the act of reading it in Congress. Also, do you disagree with his contention that the Constitution has very often been subject to interpretation and that each interpretation depends very much on how the individual leans politcally? If it was so straight-forward and left no room at all for interpretation, then what is the Supreme Court's job exactly?
 
He was wronged here.
He's still a slimeball though.:blah:

Goldberg: The Journolist a symptom of a left-wing conspiracy - saratogian.com
Just in case you’ve been living in a cave, or if you only get your news from MSNBC, here’s the story. A young blogger, Ezra Klein, formerly of the avowedly left-wing American Prospect and now with the avowedly mainstream Washington Post, founded the e-mail listserv “Journolist” for like-minded liberals to hash out and develop ideas. Some 400 people joined the by-invitation-only group. Most, it seems, were in the media, but many hailed from academia, think tanks and the world of forthright liberal activism generally. They spoke freely about their political and personal biases, including their hatred of Fox and Rush Limbaugh, and their utter loyalty to the progressive cause and Democratic success.
 
He made it confusing for himself when he used the term "its" instead of clearly specifying exactly what "it" he was referring to.
 
I think he got careless with his wording because he probably figured everybody would know he would meant -- since only a dolt would say the Constitution itself isn't binding.
 
I think he got careless with his wording because he probably figured everybody would know he would meant -- since only a dolt would say the Constitution itself isn't binding.

yeah - I don't think he's that far gone :)
 
I saw the original posting over on Breitbart too, almost posted it, but after hearing the video twice, I declined to post it. He appears to be mocking the GOP, not the Constitution per say. He's still a twit, however I think in this case a pass and ignore of his comments would be the best course of action.
 
Depending on how someone looks at his view - he could be running the Dem's into the ground the calling them out to be idiots who don't care about the Constitution.
 
The man clarified what he meant on his washingtonpost column. What exactly still bothers you about it?


What bothers me so much about it is the absolute disdain that liberals have for anyone that doesn't see the world as they do. Yes, he wrote in his column trying to set straight his utterly stupid comments, but he failed while devolving into chiding those who saw and heard him say what possibly he didn't want to get out, and that is the unmasking of the true nature that liberals/progressives feel about our founding documents.


He clearly did not mean that the constitution is not binding, but the act of reading it in Congress.


So he says, I think he is a liar, and not a good one.


Also, do you disagree with his contention that the Constitution has very often been subject to interpretation and that each interpretation depends very much on how the individual leans politcally?


That may be so, and wrongly I might add. Most "interpretation" has come from the liberal left looking to end run around the process when their ideas would never pass constitutionally.

If it was so straight-forward and left no room at all for interpretation, then what is the Supreme Court's job exactly?


To make sure that they are a check on the process, NOT to make law through fiat as has been done.


j-mac
 
What bothers me so much about it is the absolute disdain that liberals have for anyone that doesn't see the world as they do. Yes, he wrote in his column trying to set straight his utterly stupid comments, but he failed while devolving into chiding those who saw and heard him say what possibly he didn't want to get out, and that is the unmasking of the true nature that liberals/progressives feel about our founding documents.





So he says, I think he is a liar, and not a good one.





That may be so, and wrongly I might add. Most "interpretation" has come from the liberal left looking to end run around the process when their ideas would never pass constitutionally.




To make sure that they are a check on the process, NOT to make law through fiat as has been done.


j-mac

Of course Jmac I have seen nothing but respect from you towards liberals who do not see things they way you do

Never any insults, or comments about how they hate america etc. Purely discussions that are respectfull towards other peoples ideals

One reason I respect you as a poster as much as I do
 
What bothers me so much about it is the absolute disdain that liberals have for anyone that doesn't see the world as they do. Yes, he wrote in his column trying to set straight his utterly stupid comments, but he failed while devolving into chiding those who saw and heard him say what possibly he didn't want to get out, and that is the unmasking of the true nature that liberals/progressives feel about our founding documents.

They're entitled to their opinion as are you. At the end of the day what they think doesn't much matter. The ultimate authority on Constitutional issues is the Supreme Court.

So he says, I think he is a liar, and not a good one.





That may be so, and wrongly I might add. Most "interpretation" has come from the liberal left looking to end run around the process when their ideas would never pass constitutionally.




To make sure that they are a check on the process, NOT to make law through fiat as has been done.


j-mac

Ah, well if you don't believe him, there's really not much else to say.

As for the "interpretation", it's been done by both sides all through US history and with the support of the Supreme Court, who are then promptly accused of "activism" by whatever side feels wronged.
 
What bothers me so much about it is the absolute disdain that liberals have for anyone that doesn't see the world as they do.

and, of course, there is NONE of that coming the other direction -- especially by those who define the world as a stark dichotomy between conservatives and liberals while making sweeping generalizations about the latter.
 
What bothers me so much about it is the absolute disdain that liberals have for anyone that doesn't see the world as they do.

Blah blah blah, I've seen the same exact attitude from many conservatives on this forum.

So he says, I think he is a liar, and not a good one.

Seeing as how the subject was the message he was trying to convey, and there's no evidence to contradict him, and many people here who don't even like the guy got what he meant, I think it's safe to say you're wrong at best and most likely too focused on scoring points.

That may be so, and wrongly I might add. Most "interpretation" has come from the liberal left looking to end run around the process when their ideas would never pass constitutionally.

Oh, come on, both left- and right-leaning judges have pronounced unpopular interpretations of the Constitution and its bedrock principles.

To make sure that they are a check on the process, NOT to make law through fiat as has been done.

A binding interpretation of the law and its underlying theory or intent has the weight of law. It's the nature of our system and has been for a long long long time.
 
one side openly embraces an evolving constitution, the other renounces it

meanwhile, ezra klein, prominent wapo and newsweek columnist, frequent msnbc contributor, and punk founder of journolist (i wonder if he's yet taken his drug test and, if so, what were the results), admits the constitution is too difficult ("confusing") to comprehend because it's so old

LOL!

i'm surprised he didn't complain about its length
 
I've said it many, many times.

Context is entirely ****ing lost on some people.

It completely blows my mind that people could actually interpret that conversation as Klein saying the constitution doesn't have binding power on anything. To me, this is someone steadfastly declaring that the sky is, in fact, purple.
 
Last edited:
It has been demonstrated also on this forum that at the root of a number of liberal (according to lean) individuals belief system, is that the Constitution can be interpreted as having infinite power in these ways, except when explicitly prohibited:
control over the market via commerce clause
control over how it spend money via "general welfare'
control over how much they can take from you via taxation

And that's not exaggerating at all. They would argue it isn't true that power would actually be used, or practically COULD be used, but they believe it legitimately exists. I use to think constitutional issues were just rhetorical nonsense from the right...I was slowly shown that in the general sense, it really is a fundamental issue.
 
Of course Jmac I have seen nothing but respect from you towards liberals who do not see things they way you do

Never any insults, or comments about how they hate america etc. Purely discussions that are respectfull towards other peoples ideals

Gardener said:
and, of course, there is NONE of that coming the other direction

TacticalEvilDan said:
Blah blah blah, I've seen the same exact attitude from many conservatives on this forum.

No less than three immediate postings of how 'conservatives do it too' so it's ok. What a load of crap.

Look, Klein got caught saying what he really feels, as do most libs that hold the disdain of constraint brought about by the constitution. deal with it.

Instead we get, 'Aw, you're taking him out of context.' Or, 'He didn't mean that', or, 'you did it too'....etc. Instead of addressing why it is that liberals want to do away with constitutional restraints, and what they would have in place.


j-mac
 
I've said it many, many times.

Context is entirely ****ing lost on some people.

It completely blows my mind that people could actually interpret that conversation as Klein saying the constitution doesn't have binding power on anything. To me, this is someone steadfastly declaring that the sky is, in fact, purple.


Context? Ah I see, the last bastion of a losing argument.

j-mac
 
It has been demonstrated also on this forum that at the root of a number of liberal (according to lean) individuals belief system, is that the Constitution can be interpreted as having infinite power in these ways, except when explicitly prohibited:
control over the market via commerce clause
control over how it spend money via "general welfare'
control over how much they can take from you via taxation

And that's not exaggerating at all. They would argue it isn't true that power would actually be used, or practically COULD be used, but they believe it legitimately exists. I use to think constitutional issues were just rhetorical nonsense from the right...I was slowly shown that in the general sense, it really is a fundamental issue.


Let us not forget the esteemed Nancy Pelosi when questioned on where the congress derived the power to force the purchase of health care on individual citizens, from a private insurer.




Authority? Authority? We don't need no stinkin' authority.......


j-mac
 
Context? Ah I see, the last bastion of a losing argument.

j-mac

So you're still sticking with the "Klein thinks the constitution isn't binding" argument?
Really?

Ok. Since context isn't important, here's something you said:
congress derived the power to force the purchase of health care on individual citizens, from a private insurer.

J-mac is for Obamacare.

Authority? Authority? We don't need no stinkin' authority.......
J-mac is for anarchy.

The constitution is outdated and too hard to understand

J-mac doesn't understand the constitution. It's too hard for him.

Let's see, it was written in English wasn't it?

J-mac doesn't actually know if the constitution was written in English, so he had to ask to make sure.

Oh, and here is more condescending from the esteemed Mr. Klein....That is if you are smart enough to read it.....

J-mac thinks some people on this message board don't know how to read.

conservatives do it too

J-mac is saying conservatives also rape babies. (that's what "it" refers to. honest)

Context. Sign of a failing argument, eh J-mac?


And yes, actually, conservatives do interpret the constitution, because all written language requires interpretation, by definition. Right to bear arms, ya? Arms. Those two things attached to your shoulders. Clearly this is what the founding fathers meant. If they meant guns, they'd say guns, right?
 
Last edited:
So you're still sticking with the "Klein thinks the constitution isn't binding" argument?
Really?

Ok. Since context isn't important, here's something you said:


J-mac is for Obamacare.


J-mac is for anarchy.



J-mac doesn't understand the constitution. It's too hard for him.



J-mac doesn't actually know if the constitution was written in English, so he had to ask to make sure.



J-mac thinks some people on this message board don't know how to read.



J-mac is saying conservatives also rape babies. (that's what "it" refers to. honest)

Context. Sign of a failing argument, eh J-mac?


And yes, actually, conservatives do interpret the constitution, because all written language requires interpretation, by definition. Right to bear arms, ya? Arms. Those two things attached to your shoulders. Clearly this is what the founding fathers meant. If they meant guns, they'd say guns, right?


Although entertaining, quite sophomoric.....:lamo Nice try though....:2wave:


j-mac
 
Let us not forget the esteemed Nancy Pelosi when questioned on where the congress derived the power to force the purchase of health care on individual citizens, from a private insurer.




Authority? Authority? We don't need no stinkin' authority.......


j-mac
That is exactly why I'm excited about the proposal to show how all bills are constitutional before being voted on.
 
Back
Top Bottom