While appearing on MSNBC's Daily Rundown on Thursday, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein mocked Republicans for wanting to start the 112th Congress with a reading of the Constitution.
Klein told Norah O'Donnell, "The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."
But that is precisely the point, and it is partly why Republicans - many backed by the Tea Party - destroyed the Democrats in November's election.
Members of Congress take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It is not asking too much for those members to know what the document actually says.
There is good reason for the new rule.
During the health care debate, Michigan Democrat John Conyers referred to a non-existent "good and welfare" clause to justify the individual mandate in the bill.
When asked about the Constitutional basis for the individual mandate, Nancy Pelosi simply responded, "Are you serious?"
Actually, yes.
Liberals seem to think they can do whatever they want regardless of the rules spelled out in the Constitution. Alcee Hastings, a member of the House Rules Committee let the cat out of the bag when he said, "we make the rules up as we go along".
For example, the tenth amendment to the Consitution reads as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
To one liberal member of Congress, supporting this sentence is "radical", and extreme. Jan Schakowski mocked the idea of a free people governing themselves while supporting the Constitution while appearing on the Stephanie Miller radio program.
Not only do liberals have little to no regard for America's founding documents, they have even less regard for the people who believe the nation should be governed within the framework of the Constitution.
It is no wonder Democrats got shellacked in November.
The new rule requiring a reading of the Constitution is a good thing because it will remind members of Congress of the document they are sworn to uphold.
Comments
It's amusing hearing a conservative complain about liberals and the constitution....it seems that when a judge says something is unconstitutional, the conservatives scream "activist judge", yet when a judge infers things that are not written, then they are "doing their duty". Look at the way the conservative supreme court has ruled on issues the past 10 yrs, look at the federal courts that ruled on health care...so far, it's 2 judges ruling the health care law is constitutional to one judge that says it isn't.
So Chris, when did you last read the Constitution? Contact the American Center for Law & Justice, they will be happy to send you a copy. In fact, I think I will have a copy sent to Ezra, as it is clear he hasn't a clue to what the document is!
Oh, and how about that Nancy Pelosi. Problem is, does she have the intelligence to understand what it says either?
Republicans, great idea. Lets refresh all the current members as they seem to have forgotten it's content.
It's amusing to read yet another Pomo Leftist complain about those who would uphold the constitution. It is amusing exactly one time. Then boredom overpowers as the "argument" set forth happens to be the same step by step each and every time: [1] Take things written in the constitution and note that Conservatives care about those written things. [2] Claim the exact opposite and trust Conservatives to be as indifferent to the text as Pomo Leftists are. [3] Note that Pomo Leftist judges decide what is to be called constitutional, or unconstitutiional, without being burdened by actually having to read, never mind consider, those silly old words actually written down in the Constitution. [4] Claim the exact opposite and trust Conservatives to be as indifferent to the text as Pomo Leftists are.
[4] Reiterate this 4-step hip-hop until Soros apologizes for the murders of those Jews he fingered to the Gestapo in Hungary in WWII, or Global Warming melts Antarctica, whichever Leftist version of Hell Freezing Over comes first.
I am amazed at how you got Klein's statement means the constitution should be ignored, or translated. She never said that. But what she did say, below, is very true and accurate.
There are way to many people in this country, who believe things are in the constitution, or it's foundation is one thing, when in fact they are wrong.
"The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."
So, in Klein's view, the Constitution is old and therefore confusing and apparently should be ignored, or translated in a way that supports liberal policy.
As for the "welfare" clause, it is in the Preamble.. as well as in Article 1, Section 8... go read it, instead of guessing..
Kelly, Ezra is a "he", not a "she".
And there is no such thing as a "good and welfare" clause in the constitution. Go read it for yourself.
That is a great article. It's funny how some of those congresspeople spew out whatever sounds good to them and then actually think it makes logical sense. The constitution is the basis of this country and I'm glad some people still recognize that without it we wouldn't be here.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!