Video: Bill of Rights, conservative & liberal versions
posted at 2:40 pm on July 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A palate-cleanser of sorts from our friends at Reason.TV, albeit one that will annoy both sides of the ideological chasm. Think of this as the view of Left and Right from the libertarian perspective. Exaggeration? Certainly. Amusing? You decide:
The 7th Amendment, for those like this pair who don’t know, requires jury trials for criminal prosecutions. This manages to hit the easily-satirized aspects of both extremes, which makes it a bit like JibJab, in that everyone can point a finger and laugh at something.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
The does not properly characterize the Conservative view. Fail.
echosyst on July 2, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Conservaliberal
blatantblue on July 2, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Boring.
StephC on July 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Liberacon
blatantblue on July 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Funny. Though I’d characterize it more as liberals vs Republicans instead of liberals v.s. conservatives.
gwelf on July 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Meh.
2 Mehs.
Looks like someone started out with a funny idea but then didn’t want to put any effort into following through.
Tom_OC on July 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Lame, boring, bye.
JiangxiDad on July 2, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Pretty lame.
Interesting thought experient. James Madison initial thought the Bill of RIghts was unnecessary, even potentially damaging to the constitution. He thought that listing out rights would do have might cause people in the future to think if a right is not protect explicitly, it can be infringed.
Then think about controversies like gun laws and abortion in that context (no bill of rights). I think you then end up at the position James Madison would espouse.
WashJeff on July 2, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Dumb.
Connie on July 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM
They wanted to keep it short, which is great since these kind of things usually run too long. But that meant it got more pointless as it went along.
exception on July 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I don’t think it even properly characterizes the Liberal view either, for that matter…
Yeah, pretty much.
JetBoy on July 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM
“Uh..no.”
That about sums up the liberals argument against the 2nd Amendment.
Thunderstorm129 on July 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM
“Invalid parameters”
Count to 10 on July 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM
*yawn*
grapeknutz on July 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Do these loons work in the obama cabinet?
easyone on July 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM
One of them needed to say “I don’t Know” and than the green slime drop on them.
portlandon on July 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I think the 3rd Amendment gives us a good clue as to the mindset that the 2nd was drafted under.
mad saint jack on July 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Er….no. Put together by a bunch of people who clearly don’t understand the positions of either side well, just looking to rag on them.
amerpundit on July 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Lame
guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 2:52 PM
On the other hand, this list of enumerated rights has been a major help in reducing the limitations of the enumerated powers.
exception on July 2, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Lame…meh….fleh.
More boring than lint hockey.
birdhurd on July 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM
I can see point from a persepctive that history has shown that all three branches have ignored the constitution.
If we had leadres that followed the consitution, the bill of rights, IMHO, would be uncessary. For example, nowhere in the constituion, sans bill of rights, is the power given to the legislature to ban firearms; therefore, the federal government does not have the power to fire arms. That should almost be good enough as a SCOTUS decision on the subject.
WashJeff on July 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM
That was just bad.
dumb, and bad. not at all worth seeing.
bridgetown on July 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I don’t get it.
eforhan on July 2, 2009 at 3:02 PM
If we didn’t have the first and second amendments churches would be regulated if they existed at all and no one would own guns except the government. I’m glad we have them.
Rose on July 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Started funny. Weak finish. 1 star.
PersonalLiberty on July 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM
As a conservative, the conservative on the clip did not accurately represent my positions.
ksm on July 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM
At least it has the requisite Fox News bash in it :(
Lanceman on July 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Man, I wish the RNC would show some attitude like this. Powerful
Not your father RNC’s ad… Helter Skelter
deedtrader on July 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Idea: A
Execution: D-
Farmer_Joe on July 2, 2009 at 3:07 PM
What enumerate power in teh constitution would give the legislature that power? There is none.
Did having the bill of RIghts make Americans lazy in defending the constitution over time? I think so. Sure would like to see an alternate universe where James Madison’s initial advice was heeded.
WashJeff on July 2, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Funny!
AnninCA on July 2, 2009 at 3:09 PM
I’ve got it:
This was an SNL audition demo. They came up with a politics-oriented premise to clearly show they can be “edgy,” and then they utterly fail to think through any funny material with which to flesh it out. They’re a lock.
And that’s how we end up with Sen. S. Smalley (D-MN).
Tom_OC on July 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Snore.
madmonkphotog on July 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM
[Comment censored due to violation of the First Amendment.]
Loxodonta on July 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Doesn’t seem to stop them on any other front. Personally, I think an enumeration of rights should have formed the bulk of the constitution, and the 9th and 10th amendments should have been worded more strongly.
Farmer_Joe on July 2, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Well they did get one thing right, the semi-hippie burnout liberal looks and dresses like he’s a homeless bum.
Jeff from WI on July 2, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Look at me! I’m a libertarian! Only I understand the constitution! LOLZ GUYS!
darii on July 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Cannot argue with what we have seen happen over our history. I like the way the Confederate States handles this issue. Look at Sections 8 and 9.
One section on the powers of congress. Another on limits on congress (i.e., bill of rights). They also sharpened the commerce clause.
WashJeff on July 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Yeah I agree with Farmer_Joe and PersonalLiberty. This could’ve been a lot funnier.
Like the only funny part was the voice over having to say, “It means the government can’t turn your home into military housing.”
“Oooh! Sure, I got no problem with that.”
apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Epic video fail. Absence of reason is Liberalism.
regal on July 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Weak.
Kenosha Kid on July 2, 2009 at 4:04 PM
So lame, if it were a person it would be a quadriplegic. And also utterly void of logic.
Dark-Star on July 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM
That was right on.
Although the lib shoulda been wearing something to show solidarity with the Palestinian people.
Aquateen Hungerforce on July 2, 2009 at 4:18 PM
add my vote to the coulda / shoulda been better box.
wkgdyw on July 2, 2009 at 4:35 PM
For a political ad for Libertarians +1
As a satire that makes you think about it -1
- The Cat
P.S. Zo and Crowder could have done soooo much better.
MirCat on July 2, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Actually, it’s the 6th Amendment that deals with criminal prosecutions. The 7th deals with juries in common law suits exceeding the amount of $20.
The video was lame.
MichelleC on July 2, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Actually most conservatives like all of the Bill of Rights. The conservative actor was pretty lame.
roux on July 2, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Excellent description of the video…it was better than the video itself. Like a trailer thats better than the movie it is advertising.
Mord on July 2, 2009 at 5:52 PM
I believe the lames have it.
jerrytbg on July 2, 2009 at 6:32 PM
FOXN is different from the rest of the homogeneous news industry, so it has to be bashed. Only *government approved* differences are allowed in liberal world.
18-1 on July 2, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Yawn.
OhioCoastie on July 2, 2009 at 7:13 PM
“Where’s the amendment that lets the president run car companies?”
Brilliant.
Reaps on July 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Ah, I see 9 months is also the gestation period for Bush=Hitler to become Obama=Hitler. Faaaaaaaaan-tastic.
Reaps on July 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM
They didn’t “bash” Fox, actually were mocking the left’s hatred of it.
And instead of just calling it “boring” and “lame,” how about reasons why?
I don’t like the characterization of conservatives either, but the vid mostly hit the left. Libertarianism is conservatism in many ways, and many conservatives share libertarian views on things (I am one of them). I hope they understand this, and that true conservatives are just as liberty loving as they are, and with them on most issues.
jjraines on July 3, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Who let the libertarians out of their cages?
cackcon on July 3, 2009 at 2:12 AM
Oh, and “founding document”? Let’s see, first we declared independence, then a first go-round with the Articles of Confederation, then a second attempt with the Constitution . . . then the Bill of “Rights” which simply lived up to the expectations of anti-federalists who feared that unenumerated rights would be forsaken. Then the amendments backfired on everyone when they became “rights” to assert against the States, which can no longer govern.
Nice.
cackcon on July 3, 2009 at 2:17 AM
1. Congresscritters with rare exception can’t spell enumerated powers. The don’t even read bills like Crap and Tax and Porkulus. Why in the hell would we trust them not to overreach? This criticism might have been valid at its founding, but too many people take The Constitution for granted now. More Congresslechers are interested in serving and protecting their seat in congress.
2. Americans today are lazy. They are lazy because they are educated poorly by liberal-Democrat run schools. The Bill of Rights is essentially an anti-idiot clause. This is especially true when you consider at the time of the founders, there were far more restrictions on voting than 18+ aged non-felons.
BKennedy on July 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Comment pages: