PDA

View Full Version : What MSNBC really thinks of the COTUS!



LWW
12-31-2010, 06:02 AM
The COTUS has no binding power on anything and is confusing because it's over 100 years old.

I'm shocked THIS (http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/30/constitution/) got past the spoon wielders ... but the left's leadership has exposed, again, it's disdain for the COTUS and our republican form of government.

LWW

pooltchr
12-31-2010, 08:00 AM
They can completely understand a 2500 page healthcare bill that they didn't even read...but the 6 pages of the Constitution is too difficult to comprehend???????

As I recall, I got a pretty good understanding of it in a 6th grade civics class. Unfortunately, our schools seem to ignore civics in their course selection these days.

Steve

LWW
12-31-2010, 08:50 AM
Well ... the revealed sentiment of MSNBC shouldn't surprise anyone.

LWW

Sev
12-31-2010, 06:27 PM
They want serfs.

We all get poorer in the hopes that a few will not get richer.

Soflasnapper
01-01-2011, 12:46 AM
Curious when MSNBC appointed Ezra as their official spokesperson? Or did you just make that up?

Frankly, what the Constitution "means" is the sum total of the many SCOTUS rulings on that topic. Ask any appellate judge-- it's what they're required to refer to in their rulings-- the binding precedents laid down under SCOTUS rulings.

As such, it is quite a complicated subject, akin to how the Talmud 'explains' what the Torah means, in several millenia of commentaries from the learned rabbis.

Not surprisingly, since this is another area in the law, the apparent plain language of the Constitution, just as in the apparent plain language of far more limited laws, doesn't always mean what it appears to mean, as 'what it REALLY means' (or, how what it says is treated in law), is filtered through over 200 years of rulings and the established precedents.

If you disagree, explain how it is that the 'plain language' of the 2nd amendment conforms with the hundreds of gun control laws passed in the meantime?

Or how the Texas electoral votes were awarded the Bush/Cheney ticket, when both resided in Texas?

pooltchr
01-01-2011, 09:00 AM
You have hit on one of the biggest problems facing our country. Rather than taking the Constitution at face value, over the years, judges have given it their own interpertation as to what was "meant". We would be far better off if we would just accept it for what it actually says!

Steve

LWW
01-01-2011, 10:11 AM
How true. Jefferson warned us of the terror of the judiciary being the OTUS's flaw.

What's truly amazing however is that no leftist, or congress, or president, or SCOTUS in the last century has been able to figure out what this confusing statement within the COTUS means:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>"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."</span>
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>-AMENDMENT X-</span>
-US CONSTITUTION-</div></div>

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-01-2011, 03:24 PM
It is a little late to do that. It could be argued that it should have been done that way, from the beginning, but very early on (1803) we got the principle of judicial review from the Marbury v. Madison decision.

The fact is that the Congress and the president pass and sign legislation that is arguably unConstitutional, and without the judicial branch role in overturning such things, what prevents unConstitutional laws from remaining in force (since they were duly passed into law under a Constitutional process)?

Two examples of this: Clinton signed the DOMA (Defense of Marriage act), even while suspecting it was unConstitutional. W signed the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law, KNOWING (in his opinion) it was unConstitutional, and expecting a high court challenge to strike it or its more egregious provisions down. I think this is what Ezra Klein meant-- the Constitution itself doesn't have any mechanism to prevent unConstitutional laws from being enacted, and then what are we left with?

There is a need to sometimes go beyond the bare words in the Constitution to what they also 'mean,' or else we'd deprive the country from its needed defenses by making the Air Force unConstitutional, since the Constitution only mentions the army and the navy. So, most people can come to understand that 'providing the common defense' means the federal government is entitled and empowered to have an Air Force, even though that is not anything enumerated or listed as a power.

Similarly for the commerce clause, and other language. How far can one go afield of the strict actual language itself and still be within the Constitution? This will always be in tension (see the history of Sedition Act), and as our system developed, these questions land at the feet of the judiciary and the SCOTUS.

As a later response to this criticism, Klein explained that some of the language is far from clear, because respectable and informed authorities DO NOT AGREE what the language says or means.

pooltchr
01-01-2011, 03:36 PM
Which is exactly why it is a great idea to require Congress to site the provision in the Constitution that would apply to any law they pass. If they can't show authority in the constitution, the law should never even reach the floor.

Steve

LWW
01-01-2011, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a little late to do that. It could be argued that it should have been done that way, from the beginning, but very early on (1803) we got the principle of judicial review from the Marbury v. Madison decision.

The fact is that the Congress and the president pass and sign legislation that is arguably unConstitutional, and without the judicial branch role in overturning such things, what prevents unConstitutional laws from remaining in force (since they were duly passed into law under a Constitutional process)?

Two examples of this: Clinton signed the DOMA (Defense of Marriage act), even while suspecting it was unConstitutional. W signed the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law, KNOWING (in his opinion) it was unConstitutional, and expecting a high court challenge to strike it or its more egregious provisions down. I think this is what Ezra Klein meant-- the Constitution itself doesn't have any mechanism to prevent unConstitutional laws from being enacted, and then what are we left with? <span style="color: #3333FF">Use of the tenth amendment. The SCOTUS has not acted as intended, a brake against the growth of the state ... and has instead become a willing partner with the other 2 branches in growing the state.</span>

There is a need to sometimes go beyond the bare words in the Constitution to what they also 'mean,' <span style="color: #3333FF">That is the reason the Federalist Papers were written ... and it is a shame they are so seldom referred to today. If the courts went back to the original intent over 90% of the state would evaporate.</span> or else we'd deprive the country from its needed defenses by making the Air Force unConstitutional <span style="color: #3333FF">What a pantload. Read Article I, Section 8.</span>, since the Constitution only mentions the army and the navy. So, most people can come to understand that 'providing the common defense' means the federal government is entitled and empowered to have an Air Force, even though that is not anything enumerated or listed as a power <span style="color: #3333FF">Yes it is. The "NAVY" is generally accepted to be a sea based military service, which is where the USMC and USCG also come in. An army is a land based force, which is what the USAF is ... USAF bases are all on Terra Firma. Under your logic bullets would be unconstitutional since that would make an army into an air force using airborne weaponry.</span>.

Similarly for the commerce clause, and other language. How far can one go afield of the strict actual language itself and still be within the Constitution? <span style="color: #3333FF">The answer to that is self evident.</span> This will always be in tension (see the history of Sedition Act), and as our system developed, these questions land at the feet of the judiciary and the SCOTUS.

As a later response to this criticism, Klein explained that some of the language is far from clear, because respectable and informed authorities DO NOT AGREE what the language says or means.</div></div>

LWW

pooltchr
01-01-2011, 04:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As a later response to this criticism, Klein explained that some of the language is far from clear, because respectable and informed authorities DO NOT AGREE what the language says or means.

</div></div>

I have no idea what your education level might be, but here is a link to the Constitution. You don't need a law degree to understand it, unlike many of the laws Congress routinely passes, often without even reading them. Go ahead and read it, and let us know specifically anything you find that is "far from clear".
I'm sure you will be able to get plenty of help understanding anything you feel is confusing.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Steve

LWW
01-02-2011, 12:48 AM
As examples of judicial activism, or legislating from the bench, the far left can read this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. </div></div>

and be confused as to whether or not the people have the right to keep and bear arms .... yet they can read this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</div></div>

and clearly determine that James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton intended that partial birth abortion was a protected right.

LWW

Chopstick
01-02-2011, 11:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'm sure you will be able to get plenty of help understanding anything you feel is confusing.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Steve </div></div>

You obviously cannot understand the constitution because you are an old white man. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
01-02-2011, 12:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'm sure you will be able to get plenty of help understanding anything you feel is confusing.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Steve </div></div>

You obviously cannot understand the constitution because you are an old white man. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

That works to my advantage...I knew they guys who wrote it!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Steve

Sev
01-02-2011, 12:30 PM
But did they have to pass it in order to find out what was in it???

pooltchr
01-02-2011, 12:51 PM
No...they weren't trying to hide anything.

Steve

LWW
01-02-2011, 05:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But did they have to pass it in order to find out what was in it??? </div></div>

No ... but we had to wait 200 years for someone to explain that what they thought meant wasn't what they actually meant.

LWW

Qtec
01-03-2011, 04:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no idea what your education level might be, </div></div>

The guy is VERY smart and obviously educated to a high level. If you can't see that then your not as smart as I thought you to be.

We could use him on this board.

Q

Qtec
01-03-2011, 05:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Curious when MSNBC appointed Ezra as their official spokesperson? Or did you just make that up? </div></div>

He made it up. LWW is king of the strawmen.

Actually, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ezra Klein Clarifies His MSNBC U.S. Constitution Comments

In his Washington Post blog, Klein explained what he really meant in his typical calm manner:


The initial interpretation was that Id said the Constitution is too complicated to understand because it was written a long time ago, and then, as the day went on, that Id 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: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, its not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment.</span> 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, youre in luck! </div></div>

Good post.

Q

LWW
01-03-2011, 05:33 AM
You guys crack me up.

1 - I never saidhe was their "OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON" at ll.

2 - MSNBC chose to air this idjit.

3 - They never disagreed with his statement.

4 - The video ... which be all know Snoopy didn't dare to watch ... shows the MSNBC infobabe leading him to his comment.

5 - That shows that the comment was clearly staged.

6 - Preceding the comment the infobabe referred to him as MSNBC's "favorite wonk" quite clearly.

LWW

Qtec
01-03-2011, 06:01 AM
What you said was,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but <span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>the left's leadership</u></span> has exposed, again, it's disdain for the COTUS and our republican form of government.
</div></div>

You seem to see him as part of leadership of the Left ie the Democratic party. What office does he hold. I thought he was a journalist.

If he is part of the Leadership, as you claim, then he is also a spokesperson.

Q

LWW
01-03-2011, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you said was,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but <span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>the left's leadership</u></span> has exposed, again, it's disdain for the COTUS and our republican form of government.
</div></div>

You seem to see him as part of leadership of the Left ie the Democratic party. What office does he hold. I thought he was a journalist.

If he is part of the Leadership, as you claim, then he is also a spokesperson.

Q </div></div>

They called him the head wonk and not me.

LWW

LWW
01-03-2011, 06:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you said was,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but <span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>the left's leadership</u></span> has exposed, again, it's disdain for the COTUS and our republican form of government.
</div></div>

You seem to see him as part of leadership of the Left ie the Democratic party. What office does he hold. I thought he was a journalist.

If he is part of the Leadership, as you claim, then he is also a spokesperson.

Q </div></div>

Let me expand:

1 - Being the head of something implies leadership.

2 - Calling one a wonk is implying an expert status upon them.

3 - He appeared on a network that declared it their job to make Obama a success.

4 - That very same network was nothing but a shill for the Obama campaign ... up to and including one of their stars on air pronouncing they felt a thrill run up their leg whenever Obama spoke ... much as you seem to feel under the same circumstance.

5 - That same network stood to profit immensely from an Obama regime.

6 - That same network received billions in stimulus money from the Obama regime.

7 - That same network continues to shill for the regime to this day.

I could go on ... but I suspect your head is thoroughly buried into the sand by this point.

LWW