PDA

View Full Version : Constitution Is Confusing Because Its 100+ YO


dandechino
01-01-2011, 1:55 AM
According to Ezra Klein, the "Constitution is too confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago."
http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-blogger-ezra-klein-constitution-has-no-binding-power-on-anything-confusing-because-its-over-100-years-old/

This, my friends, is what you face. Some pasty, ivory tower, elite who is confused by documents that are older than a century.

Scratch705
01-01-2011, 2:00 AM
i wonder how confusing it would be once they decide to quarter troops in their homes, or cops decide to start random searches of anyone they want, anytime, anywhere.

Turo
01-01-2011, 2:45 AM
Oh no! It's confusing to someone whose idea of freedom is getting groped every time they board a plane and being perfectly okay with unwarranted searches of them and their belongings!

Ezra, you may not be able to understand the constitution, but to real Americans, It's pretty clear what it means.

cbn620
01-01-2011, 3:03 AM
About the only thing we seem to not argue much about when it comes to the Constitution around here is the 2nd amendment, for obvious reasons, and even there we have disputes. We argue constantly about what the Constitution means here. Of course it's confusing. I personally am not confused about the Constitution, at least my view of it, but since apparently a lot of people don't believe in my reading of the Constitution I'm inclined to believe they are confused. We can't both be right. Thus yes, I suppose the Constitution is "confusing."

The part where he says "no binding power" is a terrible choice of words but I do not believe Klein is saying the Constitution has no binding power. That would be beyond ignorant if it's what he were actually saying and I'm prepared to condemn that kind of talk, but it appears as if he is responding specifically to what the interviewer is asking, not about the Constitution in general. She asks him what he thinks about the Republicans staging a Constitution reading when the Congress starts. She asks if he thinks it's some kind of gimmick and that's when he says "of course it has no binding power" (paraphrased.) He is saying he thinks the reading event is something of a political gimmick and that doing that in Congress has no binding power, as in it doesn't further the Republican agenda or advance any of their interests in any tangible way, i.e. a binding way.

I don't suppose he is incorrect since staging a Constitution reading will not bind anyone to anything. Only rulings by the Supreme Court on the meaning in the Constitution will even begin to convince anyone of its meaning and applicability. If the Republicans are doing this to condemn Democratic policy or prop up their own as if the Constitution validates their reasoning, he is correct that that has "no binding power" in that it will not legally do anything. They are doing it in protest, which has its merits, but it will essentially have no power over anyone.

Again if he is demeaning the importance of the Constitution, specifically the rights it protects, then I am prepared to completely eat my words and I disagree with such a sentiment with extreme prejudice. I can't however in good conscience accuse him of saying that when it seems so apparent he was not saying anything of the sort.

On one final note, what does calling him a pasty, ivory tower elite have to do with this subject? That is really poor rhetoric. It doesn't make a point to me at all, it doesn't convince me of an argument or of a sentiment or of any ideas. It sounds like a slogan, like parroting, like a talking point. I think that kind of tactic is sensationalist and useless at the same time. There are so many more valuable and information-rich things you could be saying in response to someone who is in your opinion calling the Constitution nothing more than a 200 year old piece of toilet paper. If I thought someone was saying such a thing I'd have far more to say and do than to call them a pasty ivory tower elite.

cbn620
01-01-2011, 3:06 AM
Oh no! It's confusing to someone whose idea of freedom is getting groped every time they board a plane and being perfectly okay with unwarranted searches of them and their belongings!

Ezra, you may not be able to understand the constitution, but to real Americans, It's pretty clear what it means.

I've honestly never read a word of Mr. Klein's writings, has he really said his idea of personal freedom involves being groped at the airport by TSA? Has he written at all in favor of the recent increased security measures by TSA?

press1280
01-01-2011, 3:58 AM
The Constitution was originally meant to be understood by all the people, and not have hidden meanings like some would have us believe(the general welfare clause as an example). The later amendments to the Constitution are a bit more technical and confusing.

GOEX FFF
01-01-2011, 4:40 AM
Good Lord, first of all...the Constitution (written "234+" years ago, not 100+ so we can see already he's confused easily :rolleyes: ) is more clearly written and easier to understand than the way most modern municipal laws are written today. The problem is not the time it was written, but is that with some of today's society. There are people in this country who just don't believe, accept or merely don't care to understand what or how this country was founded on, while at the same time going on with their everyday modern itouch lives, which ironically the framers of that little "confusing" [sic] piece of paper has given them the freedom to do. :mad:

Like the sayings goes...
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so freaking hard to understand????

Patrick-2
01-01-2011, 4:58 AM
i wonder how confusing it would be once they decide to quarter troops in their homes, or cops decide to start random searches of anyone they want, anytime, anywhere.

Still allowed by state authorities, by the way. The third has never been incorporated, so it remains a restriction only on federal armies.

And those searches are occurring in DC from time to time in various ways. Chief Kathy Lanier was setting up roadblocks and effectively creating a quarantine of neighborhoods she decided were problematic. The cops checked everyone going in and out. She was told by the courts to stop, but to this day she laments openly during radio interviews about how dumb it was to prevent her from targeting entire classes of people (residents of a whole neighborhood). And her force still plays real close to the line, at times.

And for the record, most of the residents liked the checkpoints. They worked. But freedom has its costs.

gat
01-01-2011, 7:04 AM
What is an "ivory tower, elite"? I don't understand?

An ivory tower sounds like a better place to live than a tiny apartment like I have, but I assume he doesn't live in an actual ivory tower.

B Strong
01-01-2011, 7:49 AM
Opinons are like...you know

WGAS what this Klein character has to say? He's ignorant of the facts, he's a newspaper pogue, and since newspapers seems to be an endangered species, how much longer will he have a venue to pontificate from?

dustoff31
01-01-2011, 8:01 AM
He posted this later the same day, trying to unsay what he said. He must have really been getting hammered.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ezra-klein-clarifies-constitution-comments-when-a-lot-of-people-misunderstand-you-at-once-the-fault-is-usually-yours/


“The initial interpretation was that I’d said the Constitution is too complicated to understand because it was written a long time ago, and then, as the day went on, that I’d said the document itself is nonbinding. I went back and watched the clip — or at least the part someone clipped and sent me, which is above — and thought I was clear enough. But when a lot of people misunderstand you at once, the fault is usually yours. So if I was unclear: Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment. And no, reading the document on the floor of the House will not make the country more like you want it to be, unless your problem with the country is that you thought the Constitution should be read aloud on the floor of the House more frequently. In which case, well, you’re in luck!”

BobB35
01-01-2011, 8:05 AM
According to Ezra Klein, the "Constitution is too confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago."
http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-blogger-ezra-klein-constitution-has-no-binding-power-on-anything-confusing-because-its-over-100-years-old/

This, my friends, is what you face. Some pasty, ivory tower, elite who is confused by documents that are older than a century.

This is why most people associate Democrats with trying to destroy or circumvent the constitution. This is the kid who started "Journlist", you know that "unbiased" group of reporters that never spin anything.:rolleyes:

This is your typical establishment do gooder leftist. Say what you will, junk me if you want...these type of people are why Dems have a bad name.

spencerhut
01-01-2011, 8:37 AM
The Constitution is confusing? Name one bill passed in the last couple of years that can be read, let alone understood by a laymen. Tax code anyone?

If only we could erase all the current laws and codes and start over with only the Constitution.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

PatriotnMore
01-01-2011, 8:44 AM
Oh God, I am so confused, I don't know which writing is more confusing, the Constitution, or the "Dick and Jane" series of books.

God help us if the Constitution is confusing to this knuckle head, the laws written in legalese must be impossible for him to comprehend.

dantodd
01-01-2011, 9:17 AM
The Constitution is neither difficult to understand nor confusing. What is difficult is reconciling the constitution with the current state of our nation. I think it wrongheaded to blame the constitution for that. Instead we should look to re-align our nation with the constitution.

Window_Seat
01-01-2011, 10:13 AM
Still allowed by state authorities, by the way. The third has never been incorporated, so it remains a restriction only on federal armies.

Hmmmm... I don't know about that...

Engblom v. Carey (677 F.2d 957) (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/engblom.html)

In this action, brought...by two correction officers at the Mid-Orange Correctional Facility ("Mid-Orange") in Warwick, New York, against the Governor and various officials of the State of New York, plaintiffs-appellants contend that their due process and Third Amendment rights were violated during a statewide strike of correction officers in April and May of 1979 when they were evicted from their facility-residences without notice or hearing and their residences were used to house members of the National Guard without their consent. For the first time a federal court is asked to invalidate as violative of the Third Amendment the peacetime quartering of troops "in any house, without the consent of the Owner." District Judge Robert W. Sweet granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that appellants did not have a sufficient possessory interest in their facility-residences to entitle them to protection under the Third Amendment and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We affirm the dismissal of the due process claim on the ground that adequate post-deprivation procedures were afforded to protect appellants' rights. We reverse the dismissal of the Third Amendment claim on the ground that issues as to material facts rendered summary judgment inappropriate.

Further:

We first address the novel claim based on the Third Amendment, a provision rarely invoked in the federal courts. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the National Guardsmen are "Soldiers" within the meaning of the Third Amendment. Moreover, we agree with the district court that the Third Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment for application to the states.

So why (if the Engblom Court concludes this), would the 2nd affirm the DCs denial of the COs 14th Amendment claim if they conclude that the 14th is supposed to protect the 3rd? Could it be that they were they trying to get the Slaughterhouse cases overturned?

In Judge Irving R. Kaufman's partial dissent:

Accordingly, Judge Sweet properly concluded that the Third Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as one of the "fundamental" rights "rooted in the tradition and conscience of our people" and thus "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Engblom v. Carey (677 F.2d 957) (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/engblom.html)

Erik.

dandechino
01-01-2011, 10:20 AM
For certain people the Constitution must be confusing. Otherwise, all their plans for utopia are illegal. And yes, I watched the clip and believe he was saying that what the Repubs were doing was non-binding- he was not directly saying the document was non-binding. But with the policies that a person from his range of the political spectrum supports, his actions declare loud and proud that the Constitution is dead- or at least the parts he doesn't care for.

The Shadow
01-01-2011, 10:22 AM
There's nothing confusing about the Constitution unless you're of the same mindset as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence mean exactly what they say, no double entendres, no reading between the lines, just plain spoken sentences that anyone with working knowledge of the Kings English can understand. The only confusion that gets worked into the Constitution is that injected into it by those who do not like the freedom that the Constitution protects.

Trojan Bayonet
01-01-2011, 10:29 AM
Klein probably doesn't understand the Communist Manifesto either, since that was written over 100 years ago too.

I am almost certain that the UCLA Political Science department is proud of this bRUIN alumnus and his pronouncements. He definitely read works that were over 100 years old while earning his Bachelor's degree in Political Science, if that program is worth its salt. If not, he's just another reason why the taxpayers of California should defund the UC and CSU systems.

Ezra Klein bio on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Klein)

dandechino
01-01-2011, 10:49 AM
Klein probably doesn't understand the Communist Manifesto either, since that was written over 100 years ago too.

I am almost certain that the UCLA Political Science department is proud of this bRUIN alumnus and his pronouncements. He definitely read works that were over 100 years old while earning his Bachelor's degree in Political Science, if that program is worth its salt. If not, he's just another reason why the taxpayers of California should defund the UC and CSU systems.

Ezra Klein bio on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Klein)


Wow, I didn't realize he only had a Bachelor's degree. I'm glad he's here to tell us what we need to know about the US Constitution.

kln5
01-01-2011, 10:52 AM
I think they should read the constitution on the floor. that is just more time that they aren't making more BS laws to get in our way.

CSACANNONEER
01-01-2011, 11:05 AM
Good Lord, first of all...the Constitution (written "234+" years ago, not 100+ so we can see already he's confused easily :rolleyes: ) is more clearly written and easier to understand than the way most modern municipal laws are written today. The problem is not the time it was written, but is that with some of today's society. There are people in this country who just don't believe, accept or merely don't care to understand what or how this country was founded on, while at the same time going on with their everyday modern itouch lives, which ironically the framers of that little "confusing" [sic] piece of paper has given them the freedom to do. :mad:

Like the sayings goes...
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so freaking hard to understand????

While I want to agree with you, it's hard to since, I believe that +100 years old includes +234 years, +500 years, etc. Obviously, while the author is a moron, he is 100% correct that the US Constitution is +100 years old. It's probably the only fact in his article that is indeed a fact.

CCWFacts
01-01-2011, 12:11 PM
FDR already gave us a revised, modernized Second Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights), which includes the rights to:



Employment, with a living wage
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing
Medical care
Education
Social security


Isn't that awesome that we can get all those things for free!!!

Paladin
01-01-2011, 1:28 PM
Another reason to fight against the "evolution" and "progress" of the English language -- it will separate us from our American heritage, divide us against ourselves, and thus make it easier for the government to conquer us (strip us of our rights).

If this fellow has a hard time, how about someone whose primary language is Spanish or Ebonics? :rolleyes: That will just speed up the process of enslavement of the American people. No wonder liberals love "multiculturalism" and second languages.

I shudder to think of what our future holds if we don't secure our borders and massively deport illegal aliens, but rather give them, who have at best, probably a Mexican high school education. As if our own kids who've gone thru our crummy "progressive" (i.e., liberal) "public" (i.e., government) school system aren't ignorant enough of our heritage and system of government, imagine what formerly illegal aliens will vote?

Mikeb
01-01-2011, 1:48 PM
I think they should read the constitution on the floor. that is just more time that they aren't making more BS laws to get in our way.

All the new guys and gals going to Washington this year will have to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They should be required to read it.
The Oath is binding... isn't it?
take care
Mike

jl123
01-01-2011, 1:50 PM
Check out the works of Lysander Spooner (who happened to be cited by the majority in Heller and McDonald). He has some interesting legal opinions on the authority of the Constitution and whether or not it is a binding agreement.

http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm

N6ATF
01-01-2011, 1:56 PM
The Oath is binding... isn't it?

Not at all. Government would self-destruct if it were.

johnthomas
01-01-2011, 2:28 PM
I have an Idea, just throw it out and start all over. Pol Pot, Hilter, Stalin and others have started over in their countries and it worked out so well.
I have a better idea, let's take the original constitution, get rid of all the amendments and changes and go by that.

dandechino
01-01-2011, 3:24 PM
I have an Idea, just throw it out and start all over. Pol Pot, Hilter, Stalin and others have started over in their countries and it worked out so well.
I have a better idea, let's take the original constitution, get rid of all the amendments and changes and go by that.

I don't know where we'd be without the first 10 amendments...

BigDogatPlay
01-01-2011, 3:27 PM
Ezra Klein is proof of what a 26 year old with a Poli Sci degree who lands himself a gig inside the Beltway is truly good for.

N6ATF
01-01-2011, 3:37 PM
I don't know where we'd be without the first 10 amendments...

Or 14.

Agent Orange
01-01-2011, 3:48 PM
Is it me or did he say the supreme law of the land has no binding power?

N6ATF
01-01-2011, 4:14 PM
Unless it's a mystic scroll that has the ability to shoot people with lightning bolts who violate it...

dandechino
01-02-2011, 10:46 PM
Lysander Spooner is always a fun read.

MontClaire
01-02-2011, 10:51 PM
i wonder how confusing it would be once they decide to quarter troops in their homes, or cops decide to start random searches of anyone they want, anytime, anywhere.

People's Tribunal will counter criminal actions by the oppressors. There is always self cleaning. Or we can alwasy invite the rest of the world to intervene. what would be your choice?

sholling
01-02-2011, 11:08 PM
Ezra Klein is the far far far left wing activist that created the JournOlist, a far left wing list server for lefy reporters that was used to coordinate and shape news coverage to benefit far left wing causes and politicians. They famously coordinated news coverage to get Obama elected and crush his rivals. Members also famously came up with the plan to paint anyone that opposed Obama and Obama's polices as a racist (sound familiar?). Klein shutdown the list server after the Daily Caller published some of the more embarrassingly corrupt conversations.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/political-operatives-on-journolist-worked-to-shape-news-coverage/
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/27/heroes-of-journolist-dan-froomkin-james-surowiecki-jeffrey-toobin-michael-tomasky-%E2%80%94-and-founder-ezra-klein/
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-debates-making-its-coordination-with-obama-explicit/
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/25/the-fix-was-in-journolist-e-mails-reveal-how-the-liberal-media-shaped-the-2008-election/

Steve32
01-03-2011, 12:39 AM
"Constitution is too confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago."

I'm ESL (English as a Second Language), but I'm not confused. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc. :rolleyes:

The Shadow
01-03-2011, 12:49 AM
Ezra Klein is proof of what a 26 year old with a Poli Sci degree who lands himself a gig inside the Beltway is truly good for.

You might say that "Ezra Klein" is synonymous with "useful idiot".

Tarn_Helm
01-03-2011, 1:29 AM
According to Ezra Klein, the "Constitution is too confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago."
http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-blogger-ezra-klein-constitution-has-no-binding-power-on-anything-confusing-because-its-over-100-years-old/

This, my friends, is what you face. Some pasty, ivory tower, elite who is confused by documents that are older than a century.

This limp fool, Ezra Klein, falls into the category of American who believes that an elaborate priesthood of esoterically trained lawyers and judges, organized into layer upon layer of court, appellate court, etc., is needed to make sense of the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/12/thoughts_on_jus.php

But the opposite philosophy is what is characterized as a sort of "Protestant (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/12/thoughts_on_jus.php)" view of U.S. Constitutional interpretation, in which you interpret the plain meaning yourself--no verbal voodoo or mendacious magic tricks: "keep" means "own" and "bear" means "carry."

This "Protestant (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/12/thoughts_on_jus.php)" view of the U.S. Constitution is best summed up, in my opinion, by U.S. Constitutional scholar St. George Tucker (See Stephen Halbrook's article on this topic (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8710&context=expresso)), when he writes, "A bill of rights may be considered, not only as intended to give law, and assign limits to a government about to be established, but as giving information to the people. By reducing speculative truths to fundamental laws, every man of the meanest capacity and understanding may learn his own rights, and know when they are violated . . . ."

I hope we can get back to basics without first bloodily tearing our whole country down back to its foundations.

But those who are in power and those seeking power have a vested interest in perpetuating the priesthood of professional liars we call "lawyers."

If we do have to do a teardown, that's where we need to start--with them and their profession.

vantec08
01-03-2011, 7:53 AM
Yep, Tarn - - - they are pushing the envelope of an armed insurrection.

resident-shooter
01-03-2011, 8:02 AM
"shall not be infringed" is all that needs to be understood

GOEX FFF
01-03-2011, 9:15 AM
While I want to agree with you, it's hard to since, I believe that +100 years old includes +234 years, +500 years, etc. Obviously, while the author is a moron, he is 100% correct that the US Constitution is +100 years old. It's probably the only fact in his article that is indeed a fact.

Sorry for my late response.

Sure, technically. I guess though in my years of life, that "+" has always been kinda like "and some change". I guess technically he's correct..
But, OK, if he were to have said "The Constitution was written over 10 years ago", even though the number of years written IS after the number stated, its still just as a moronic statement to make, especially in an article trying to justify a subject about "confusion". For instance, If someone were to say "The Vietnam war ended more than 2+ years ago".....Sure, 1975 was more than 2 years ago, but IMO, they'd still be in a place for correction with their simpleton statement.
Likewise, can't say that earns the man any intellectual brownie points for the rest of his "opinions". :rolleyes:

chris
01-03-2011, 12:44 PM
The Constitution is confusing? Name one bill passed in the last couple of years that can be read, let alone understood by a laymen. Tax code anyone?

If only we could erase all the current laws and codes and start over with only the Constitution.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

heck not just the tax code. how about that 2200 page healtcare bill? and how about the myriad of laws passed in this state alone.

i personally believe they are written in this manner to confuse and control people into breaking the law instead of being able to understand and follow the law.

MolonLabe2008
01-03-2011, 3:14 PM
According to Ezra Klein, the "Constitution is too confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago."
http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-blogger-ezra-klein-constitution-has-no-binding-power-on-anything-confusing-because-its-over-100-years-old/

This, my friends, is what you face. Some pasty, ivory tower, elite who is confused by documents that are older than a century.

Confusing?

And I'm always told that the loony left are so much smarter than us conservatives. Go figure.

Tarn_Helm
01-03-2011, 3:51 PM
Yep, Tarn - - - they are pushing the envelope of an armed insurrection.

'Attention Must Be Paid...'
by Lee Harris The American February 19, 2010 http://www.lee-harris.org/6954/attention-must-be-paid

Within hours after Joe Stack had crashed his plane into the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas, the American political class began a mad scramble to figure out what political ideology had motivated his action. Stack was a terrorist, most agreed, but was he a conservative terrorist or a liberal terrorist?

Parsing the suicide note Stack had left behind, liberals posted blogs highlighting those phrases that resonated with the anti-tax and anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party movement. Conservative bloggers, in contrast, emphasized the left-wing character of Stack's assault on organized religion, big corporations, and the crony-corruption of the administration of President George W. Bush. Putting these two contrasting interpretations together, some neutral commentators concluded that Stack's self-described "rant" was a strange mixture of Left and Right, so that it was uncertain which ideological motive was dominant in Stack's mind when he decided to launch his kamikaze attack on the American federal government.

Most of those who were trying to pin an ideological label on Stack clearly aimed to discredit their own ideological adversaries. Whatever ideology was behind the attack clearly had something terribly wrong about it. But this whole "blame-game" approach betrayed the limits of our political class to make sense of the world around them.

The blind spot of the political class is that they systematically tend to overrate the importance of their own stock in trade—namely, ideas and ideologies. In their model of human behavior, people first examine various political theories and positions, and, after careful reflection and suitable debate, they adopt whatever political position most agrees with all the facts. Only after this process of rational analysis has been completed do human beings decide to become political actors, supporting whatever policies seem the most reasonable under the circumstances. Now while this may or may not accurately describe how the political class makes up its mind about what political position to adopt, it is an appallingly bad account of how most people decide on political questions. It is also an extremely dangerous account, because it overlooks the immense influence of irrational factors in the shaping of our political ideas, both at the level of the individual and at the level of society—factors like anger, fear, frustration, resentment, and the sense of being wronged. . . ."

Click the link above to read the rest.
:cool:

fatirishman
01-03-2011, 4:47 PM
Klein is an idiot, that is pretty clear. However, it is equally clear that the Constitution is hardly a marvel of clarity (although the Second Amendment is pretty clear), nor does the left have a monopoly on stretching the text to for policy outcomes they prefer (for example, can anybody tell me where in the Constitution the Federal Government gets the power to regulate immigration?).

Chester
01-03-2011, 4:56 PM
Klein is an idiot, that is pretty clear. However, it is equally clear that the Constitution is hardly a marvel of clarity (although the Second Amendment is pretty clear), nor does the left have a monopoly on stretching the text to for policy outcomes they prefer (for example, can anybody tell me where in the Constitution the Federal Government gets the power to regulate immigration?).

Article 1, Section 8: Powers of Congress:

...

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

...

I'd say on subject of the federal government doing it's job on the border... it's failing miserably, but there it is for you.

N6ATF
01-03-2011, 5:14 PM
Plus from Mexico to U.S., it's not immigration, it's invasion, a continuation of the Mexican-American War.

SAN compnerd
01-03-2011, 10:39 PM
What a dork. Its elites like this that really get under my skin.

Its not like the Constitution was written in a vacuum, there are 80+ pages of Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers that frame the thoughts and intentions quite nicely. If one needs more, there are other conversations documented by the founders that help clarify the intended meaning.

Of course, by this guys standards, the 725 new laws passed in Kommiefornia are MUCH better and I am sure that if we asked him, he could name each one and give us a short explaination :rolleyes:

As it is our civic duty to be informed about these new laws (as the old adage goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it) I am sure all you fellow Goldenstaters have read and are familiar with all of these new laws, correct?:cool:

fatirishman
01-03-2011, 11:30 PM
I am not being deliberately obtuse; nor am I simply seeking to derail this thread into a game of trivial pursuit - my point is simply that we do ourselves a disservice when we claim that the Constitution is always clear, that it was written for an 11 year old, etc. because that isn't always the case; and if we simply infer our policy preferences into the Constitution as being self-evident then we can hardly complain when those who disagree with us do the same.

With all that in mind, then, I am game here, but you are going to have to try harder ...

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States"

Naturalization refers to the process of becoming a citizen, not simply to moving for the sake of travel, work or even simple permanent residency (w/o at least some civil rights, the most obvious of which is voting). Thus, this clause does not, on its face at any rate, refer to the powers over immigration which the Federal Government currently claims.

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Not at all clear where you are going with this one. (Certainly, you aren't suggesting that immigration is, in and of itself a violation of the law of nations, are you? Even if there is a basis in international law that generally grants sovereigns the power to exclude, it would be a real stretch of this clause to have it automatically attach as a matter of domestic law.)

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

"Invasion" has a pretty clear meaning in legal history and wholesale migration ain't it. Obviously, only those "Laws of the Union" which are themselves passed pursuant to an express delegation of Constitutional authority may be so enforced.

corrupt
01-04-2011, 12:53 PM
Yeah I saw that video on youtube last night. Disgusting.

stix213
01-04-2011, 1:01 PM
The constitution just needs to be updated to today's lingo so kids can understand it, for example:

A well armed populous being like necessary to the security of a free State and stuff, the right of the People to have awesome guns shall like not be trampled on or otherwise ignored by the cops.

Patrick-2
01-04-2011, 2:03 PM
The constitution just needs to be updated to today's lingo so kids can understand it, for example:

A well armed populous being like necessary to the security of a free State and stuff, the right of the People to have awesome guns, like the ones in the game 'Grand Theft Auto', shall like not be trampled on or otherwise ignored by the cops.

Fixed that for you. Call it amendment 'PS3'.

jl123
01-04-2011, 2:21 PM
Fixed that for you. Call it amendment 'PS3'.

But then you would have people arguing about the word like.....

This gun is not like any in the game, thus it is not protected and can be banned.

Dutch3
01-04-2011, 2:21 PM
Jeff Spicoli had it figured out...

"What Jefferson was saying was, Hey! You know, we left this England place 'cause it was bogus; so if we don't get some cool rules ourselves - pronto - we'll just be bogus too! Get it?"

But for today's youth, comprehension would require the removal of all punctuation, capitalization and paragraphs.

MasterYong
01-04-2011, 3:46 PM
Huh.

I don't find anything confusing about The Constitution.

Then again, I read and speak English.