Quotes of the day
posted at 8:00 pm on July 3, 2011 by Allahpundit
“The story concludes, ‘The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.’ The connotation is that we shouldn’t be too slavish in our fidelity to the Constitution.
“Like the rest of this article, its conclusion misses the point. The Constitution serves the American people as an unbreakable constraint on those in power, dictating their duties and the limits on their authority. The Constitution serves We the People by requiring every government official to take an oath to obey its every word.
“The picture art at the outset of Time’s story shows the Constitution cut in dozens of narrow vertical strips. Clearly it had been run through a paper shredder.
“Evidently this is wishful thinking for some on the far left. The only problem is that it’s false. Interest in the Constitution is resurgent, and that renewed interest is the key to America’s renewal in our third century.”
***
“Any discussion of invoking the Constitution’s 14th Amendment as a way out of the debt-limit impasse is ‘crazy talk,’ Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said on ‘Fox News Sunday.’
“Some Democrats have been pointing to the 14th Amendment, which states that federal debts ‘shall not be questioned,’ as a legal argument for why President Barack Obama could continue to pay the country’s debt even if the limit is not raised…
“‘It is not acceptable for Congress and the president not to do their job and say basically the president has the authority to do this by himself,’ Cornyn said.”
***
“The great respect George Washington had accrued during the fighting of the Revolutionary War argued for making the president commander in chief of American forces. But which branch would decide when to go to war? Because members of both the House and the Senate represented the communities from which soldiers and sailors would be drawn for future conflicts, wisdom dictated that the power to make war be put in their hands.
“Keeping those two powers — declaring and waging war — separate involved an engineering feat Madison tellingly described as pitting the officeholders’ ambitions against each other.
“Obama not only acted according to original expectations in his reluctance to have his authority curtailed, but so did Congress. Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans have dropped their differences for the moment and joined together to check presidential power. Instead of acting like partisans, they are trying to chart a course of action to preserve their constitutionally mandated authority.
“Madison went on to say that relying on personal ambition to maintain the separation of powers might seem to reflect on human nature, but what then, he asked, is government itself if not ‘the greatest of all reflections on human nature.’”
***
“The question is, has the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce been so loosely construed that now Congress can do anything at all, that there is nothing it cannot do.
“Let me ask the three of you. Obviously, obesity and its costs affect interstate commerce. Does Congress have the constitutional power to require obese people to sign up for Weight Watchers? If not, why not?”
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: « Previous 1 2
There is no doubt that George will was exceptional in this circumstance.
Dyson is a racist.
Vince on July 3, 2011 at 11:50 PM
With the general welfare clause and the commerce clause-there is NOTHING the liberals cannot justify.
–
Let those of us with kids all take some time tomorrow to teach our kids a little more about the truth of our founding and our Constitution.
CW on July 3, 2011 at 11:53 PM
yeah Will can still squeeze out a couple now and then.
unseen on July 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM
Once that message was lost with the MSM to keep Democrats elected…
… it was all over.
Lone TEA Party Representative:
MSM:
Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2011 at 11:59 PM
Oh, true…
MeatHeadinCA on July 4, 2011 at 12:05 AM
You are enjoying those cruises, aren’t you!?
MeatHeadinCA on July 4, 2011 at 12:06 AM
Dyson is basically saying the Constitution is meaningless… which is what he believes.
Slaves and women didn’t get rights because the Constitution is “flexible” it is because it was AMENDED.
The three leftists on the panel are horrifyingly dangerous… and idiots to boot.
“It’s just a guideline”? No, pal, it is absolute. YOU are dangerous… DAN-GER-OUS.
mankai on July 4, 2011 at 12:14 AM
Dyson is a guy who has made it to where he is by floating these standard progressive non-arguments. He is shallow and ignorant, but he likes to hear himself talk because he gets to say “women and people of color” a lot which excites his sense of self-righteousness… even though he isn’t making any historical or constitutional sense.
mankai on July 4, 2011 at 12:20 AM
This is what this mom wears.
Size 6 to be exact.
Knucklehead on July 3, 2011 at 11:41 PM
You are enjoying those cruises, aren’t you!
MeatHeadinCA on July 4, 2011 at 12:06 AM
She’s just showin’ off now.LoL
Btw: unlike her this ‘momster’ prefers my jeans to be mid-rise bootcuts-size 8 petite, please.
I wear bootcuts instead of the skinny jeans that Knuck likes because I requested a wide chest and got a wide *** instead. *pout*
annoyinglittletwerp on July 4, 2011 at 12:22 AM
Chew on these and see what you think.
Speakup on July 4, 2011 at 12:26 AM
Yes.
rrpjr on July 4, 2011 at 12:27 AM
Are those “pajama jeans”?…
Gohawgs on July 4, 2011 at 12:30 AM
Whatever your personal views on George Will, he is a relentless defender of the Constitution, and understands it well enough to put everyone else on that panel in school uniforms.
itsspideyman on July 4, 2011 at 12:33 AM
Christiane Amanpour…
Married to Jamie Rubin
Gohawgs on July 4, 2011 at 12:35 AM
If anyones intrested the partys in the Green Room at Patricks poll.
heshtesh on July 4, 2011 at 12:41 AM
LTC Lakin thought so. Pretty much all other Army officers don’t.
HalJordan on July 4, 2011 at 12:41 AM
And many in the military.
HalJordan on July 4, 2011 at 12:43 AM
personally i agree with both jefferson and Lincoln of course we call it corny capitalism or Facism now but it is the same concept. And while i think the dems just mouth the words and try to steal others wealth. i do think and see a problem with K street, j street, lobbyists and the rich and powerful buying our leaders and passing favorable laws for them. It is nobility and fuedalism by another name.
the answer is not to steal the wealth through taxation, or redistrubute the wealth by socialism but to limit the power of the wealthy by strong laws and ethics. not to drive the money out of politics but to expose who is being bought off and why. that is and was of course the prime directive of the 1st amendment and the freedom of the press.
I am not aknee jerk republican that thinks what is good for the CEo’s and Wall street is also good for main street sometimes the two are opposed. sometimes they work together. But i can’t stand the dems class warfare crap either. Ceo’s and Wall street are not evil and wealth is not Satan.
unseen on July 4, 2011 at 12:49 AM
Some are trying to implement such a broad “interpretation” of the Commerce Clause such as to basically abrogate the whole rest of the U.S. Constitution, including it’s Bill of Rights. Clearly the Founding Fathers had something much narrower in mind, otherwise they would not have bothered to write the rest of the U.S. Constitution, nor have rebelled against King George.
HalJordan on July 4, 2011 at 12:53 AM
George Will looks brilliant next to the smug liberals on the program with him. But that’s to be expected.
He’s basically a conservative columnist, and I’d put him ahead of Krauthammer and David Brooks, and well ahead of Frum.
That said, he’s frequently wrong about candidates. It does seem to come down mostly to elitism. At any rate, he preferred Bush over Reagan, and as I recall the brilliant George Will often criticized Reagan’s policy towards the Soviets, and turned out to be completely wrong. It seems Reagan had a better understanding of the Soviets than the professional pundit.
So give him credit where you think he deserves it, but let’s not worship the man. He was wrong about Reagan, he’s wrong now about Palin, and he’s probably going to be wrong plenty more times before we’re done.
There Goes The Neighborhood on July 4, 2011 at 12:54 AM
I didn’t say I was impressed. I was amazed and I’m inclined to pay more attention to this show in the future and my opinion of Amanpour has risen immensely.
My opinion of Amanpour (and my attention to that show) rose from a very low starting point. I would have expected her to interrupt Will or otherwise prevent him from making his point. Liberals normally will not listen long enough to lose an argument.
What happened on that show was amazing, was it not? Did you really think Amanpour would let that happen?
Pythagoras on July 4, 2011 at 12:58 AM
LTC Lakin thought so. Pretty much all other Army officers don’t.
HalJordan on July 4, 2011 at 12:41 AM
Please don’t turn a birther Army officer into a martyr.
annoyinglittletwerp on July 4, 2011 at 12:58 AM
Please don’t try to shred the United States Constitution.
We teach them to take their patriotism at second-hand; to shout with the largest crowd without examining into the right or wrong of the matter — exactly as boys under monarchies are taught and have always been taught. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place — the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else’s keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan. – Mark Twain
In the beginning the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. If his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. – Mark Twain
HalJordan on July 4, 2011 at 1:07 AM
annoyinglittletwerp, the Founding Fathers would cast you out!
HalJordan on July 4, 2011 at 1:08 AM
I had to read that 3 times before I understood what that meant.
Kini on July 4, 2011 at 1:12 AM
annoyinglittletwerp, the Founding Fathers would cast you out!
HalJordan on July 4, 2011 at 1:08 AM
The fact that I’m not into conspiracies has no bearing on weather I’m a patriot or not.
I despise Zero but I have no use for birthers either…and I have little sympathy for Lakin’s troubles as a result.
annoyinglittletwerp on July 4, 2011 at 1:15 AM
The main point I was trying to make albeit somewhat cryptically, is that on back there the use of prejudice politics to enrich was well known.
And strong laws will only harm everyone but the people the laws are intended for as proven by our economy as it is right now, the only was to keep big money people between the fences is to prove to them the government is no safety net and fraud is punished with long prison sentences.
Its amazing how careful money managers are when the consequence is a job at MickyDs or making license plates.
Speakup on July 4, 2011 at 1:15 AM
If the issue were as loony as you appear to think it is, it would have been beneath Mr. Obama’s office to address it. That he stooped to do so is prima facie evidence that the issue had validity.
unclesmrgol on July 4, 2011 at 1:26 AM
I thin we are saying kind of the same thing just differently. in any reads I agree with you.
i will always fall on the side of the more freedom and sunlight the better.
unseen on July 4, 2011 at 1:35 AM
No. I got mine over in London. Everyone where’s them in Europe, that’s about all you can buy. They’re stretchy, kind like leggings. Comfy too.
Knucklehead on July 4, 2011 at 1:40 AM
George Will towered over the others in his knowledge of history, the Declaration, and the Constitution. While the others were talking about the color of the curtains, or wives of the founders, or the “living and breathing” constitution, Mr. Will held forth brilliantly, demonstrating that the Constitution “freezes” time, that is to say, we are to apply the framers’ understanding of the constitution to things occurring today. Libs like to muddy the waters by saying the framers could never have anticipated modern-day events and circumstances. If the constitution could be changed or “reinterpreted” by future majorities, then it means nothing; nothing except what the current crowd wants it to mean! Thank you, Mr. Will.
Mark7788 on July 4, 2011 at 1:42 AM
Like Prince Charles, Prince George occasionally gets one very right. Don’t get too used to it though, because as you say he will disappoint us tomorrow. They both represent the DC elites, where there are a few rare sometimes-conservatives.
slickwillie2001 on July 4, 2011 at 1:44 AM
Mr. Dyson doesn’t understand what the founders did in terms of slavery. Libs like to discredit the constitution by saying a bunch of them were slave-holders. That was true that they were, but the Declaration planted the seeds in the phrase: “All men are created equal”; seeds which would one day destroy slavery. Lincoln referred to the Declaration many times with this same point (read Krannawitter’s book on Lincoln; it’s wonderful; “Vindicating Lincoln”). Libs also like to say the 3/5 compromise was a statement about black inferiority. NOT TRUE! The 3/5 compromise was a skillful compromise to LIMIT the power of the slave-holding southern states; a move which ultimately HELPED blacks; we fought a war over it……to save the union and eliminate slavery!
Mark7788 on July 4, 2011 at 1:49 AM
Mr. Will has been wrong on political picks for president, that’s true, and he’s been unfair to Palin and Bachmann. Like Mark Levin says, “when Will is good, he’s good, when he’s bad, we’ll call him out on it.” Levin just ripped Mr. Stengel appropriately so on his June 30th show (download it and listen at marklevinshow.com). :>)
Mark7788 on July 4, 2011 at 1:53 AM
it can be changed. its called an amendment. the problem is it’s tough to ge tone passed requires a super majority so instead of trying to unify the people behind the amendment process the politican and power hunger choose to ignore it.
If Obama wants amandat ein Obamacare take it to the people and amendment the document, if the people want to stela others wealth take it to the people and amend the document like they did under Wilson.
unseen on July 4, 2011 at 1:53 AM
The amendment process is correct. It requires SUPER MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES and SUPER-DUPER MAJORITIES IN THE STATES. The framers wanted to make it difficult to change and amend the constitution. This is the whole point. Now we have judges “interpreting” the constitution as a living and breathing document. Now we have a president who is disregarding the constitution through the administrative state. If people want to change the constitution, they must go through the amendment process.
Mark7788 on July 4, 2011 at 1:58 AM
We are not a democracy. A simple majority country. We are a representative republic. Countries that rule based on a simple majority are, in effect, ruled by a mob-ocracy. Read Ann Coulter’s brilliant new book: “Demonic……” It’s a fascinating book about how the libs conduct themselves like the mob, and how it has its roots in the French Revolution.
Mark7788 on July 4, 2011 at 2:02 AM
Is Dyson trying to be a stereotype? My goodness.
If those last two videos doesn’t show how liberalism versus conservatism is nothing more than emotionalism versus thought, I don’t know what could.
You have 3 liberals, 4 if you include the host, though to be fair, I thought she did a good job, going against 1 conservative. Yet, you have the Time guy making the laughable case about auto insurance, Lapore not really saying anything, and Dyson trying to argue that activist judges gave blacks their true rights under the constitution when in reality Plessy v Ferguson was clearly racist activist judges stripping the obvious rights from blacks in 1893. Had they followed the constitution and granted everyone equal rights obviously granted by the constitution, we wouldn’t have had to have another 70 years of civil rights battles.
cpaulus on July 4, 2011 at 2:04 AM
agreed the founders wanted the vast majority to agree to the changes that they would be required to live under. Without that vast majoirty agreement you get adivided country.
unseen on July 4, 2011 at 2:06 AM
Does congress have the power to mandate that the obese attend Weight Watchers?…
To which Dyson says…
-
All you need to know about this guy.
-
RalphyBoy on July 4, 2011 at 2:22 AM
OT: Greta’s in Alaska at the Palin’s for the 4th.
dragondrop on July 4, 2011 at 2:31 AM
Happy 4th…
Gohawgs on July 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM
OT: Greta’s in Alaska at the Palin’s for the 4th.
dragondrop on July 4, 2011 at 2:31 AM
Where did you read that, is it confirmed?
heshtesh on July 4, 2011 at 3:07 AM
I’ve been wishing people Happy Independence Day.
The ’4th of July’ is a Hallmark Holiday. What we’re really celebrating is our Nation’s INDEPENDENCE.
annoyinglittletwerp on July 4, 2011 at 3:07 AM
Will has been missing in action for a couple years. Opining on the weakness of GOP candidates has lead him to presume that he is now accepted as a philosopher among liberals, aka pure anti-American socialists who despise everything about Will and would demand he euthanize his son. I am afraid Will has confused temperance with moderation.
pat on July 4, 2011 at 3:10 AM
Happy Independece Day, America!
promachus on July 4, 2011 at 3:22 AM
Where’s the Like button?
Kini on July 4, 2011 at 3:54 AM
Let Freedom Ring…
Gohawgs on July 4, 2011 at 4:09 AM
Happy 4th to all at HA…
OmahaConservative on July 4, 2011 at 4:10 AM
For my yankee friends…
Gohawgs on July 4, 2011 at 4:14 AM
Mornin’ OC…Have a good Independence Day…
Gohawgs on July 4, 2011 at 4:15 AM
You as well. I am working for 4 hours today. After that it is BBQ & beer…
OmahaConservative on July 4, 2011 at 4:19 AM
5 young girls…
Gohawgs on July 4, 2011 at 4:33 AM
1/2 day for double pay, gotta like that…
Gohawgs on July 4, 2011 at 4:34 AM
What the liberals demand is a flexible yardstick – One they could sometimes call it 36″ and the next time they might call it 24″ or 31.375″ This explains why liberals should never be trusted to run an economy. Imagine ordering a door for your house under this kind of flexible standard. Or , as we are watching them do now, as under Carter, what if they printed the fixed value of your earned pay into worthlessness?
This leftist thinking is what brought the soviets to have an economy full of cars without engines but plenty of excess tractor engines with no wheels etc. Central planning by bureaucrats doesn’t work, except for giving them power over your lives-and that’s the very goal of all liberalism. The’ll let you have your pleasures and free lunches till they get control and then…
Truth be told,liberals are like dirty old men offering free candy to little girls -and they have the same intentions for all of us.
Their goal de juor is to call the constitution (an absolute standard with a modification process built in(like a slide rule)just a guide. This is what they do with truth -any means to an end and believe me, the end they have in mind is not a pretty one for mankind….if you could just ask those aborted children. Right to life…in liberalville.
But, where were these conservative defenders of the constitution when a handful of robed politicians created Row vs.Wade out of imaginary emanations from penumbras? Guilt free sex and post-pregnacy contraception was the candy -now we’re just beginning to see their dirty intentions.
The soviets used vodka – Our leftists here use free sex, deviant sex, free lunch and freedom from the commandments, with a little more hedonism to trap us.
Don L on July 4, 2011 at 4:52 AM
Nice Post. Your first line really sets the stage.
Geochelone on July 4, 2011 at 6:31 AM
Which is why I think a Three Strikes law for corporations would be a good idea. Anything felonious done by a corporation by anyone inside its structure earns the corporation a strike. Three Strikes and the corporation is disbanded, its worldly goods sold at auction, and its information opened up for examination of misdeeds.
That would start to answer the problem of corporations gaining power and also brings into the equation the idea of a ‘corporate citizen’ having more longevity and the ability to gain power than corporeal citizens. Once you realize that a corporation is a legal fiction bound by the laws of man, then you can begin to question just why it should be allowed to do such things. Why is there no natural life span on corporations? Why are they not held to have a citizenship requirement so that their loyalties to a Nation are as those of a corporeal citizen? Why can corporations retain rights to works even genrated under their auspices and then lobby to have those rights continue on forever? By not binding corporations to a stricter structure and putting a definite end-date to them and by giving them a different set of speech and tax laws we create an unbalanced system between citizens corporate and citizens corporeal often to the advantage of the corporate, the fiction, not the real and substantial.
To be a conservative means that you hold to eternal truths and are willing to question traditions based on those truths. If we mean that all citizens are equal, then why create an unequal class of them that is fictional? Should they not be bound to equality with citizens whenever possible and their lifespan be made fixed or at least at peril of long-term wrong-doing? They give a sense of security, that something can be built by man that will last while, in fact, all the works of man will not last forever… while our good sense will be lauded and applauded and copied as it tells us how to better rule ourselves than create things to rule over us.
If you don’t like the effects of corporations then address the problem not from the effects but the causation of those effects. Address the problem, not the symptom.
ajacksonian on July 4, 2011 at 6:57 AM
The answers the other three gave to this are just eye-popping.
Count to 10 on July 4, 2011 at 7:06 AM
I can’t stand Dyson. He’s nothing but another idiot academic who has ZERO experience in the real world.
darwin on July 4, 2011 at 7:40 AM
That isn’t what you are suggesting in the rest of your comment.
Count to 10 on July 4, 2011 at 7:49 AM
OT: Is anyone else as turned off to the relentless Casey Anthony coverage as I am? It seems even more intense than the Chandra Levey/Gary Condit crap was…
OmahaConservative on July 4, 2011 at 7:55 AM
Marginalia? http://dictionary.spellcheck.com/dictionary/marginalia?show=0&t=1309780684
How very appropriate for Mr. Dyson. It is human nature to view things from your own vantage point but at the exclusion of all else? Also, I don’t find monologues delivered by someone who appears to have been fed intravenously from a Thesaurus very compelling, thank you, Jesse Jackson.
Cindy Munford on July 4, 2011 at 8:06 AM
Yes dear, you are not alone. I think they should take her out for a slow drive on 95 in a white Bronco. And to have this zoo wall to wall on Independence Day? Horrific.
Cindy Munford on July 4, 2011 at 8:07 AM
Yeah, I was just moaning about that yesterday. Coverage is ubiquitous and I have no idea why. This is Nancy Grace territory.
mankai on July 4, 2011 at 8:11 AM
hahahaha That’s exactly what that clown is like. I doubt he has a clue what he’s saying. I bet he thinks he sounds really, really smart!
darwin on July 4, 2011 at 8:11 AM
No doubt. I don’t think you’ll get anyone to take the bet.
Cindy Munford on July 4, 2011 at 8:15 AM
I got a coupla’ ideas what to do to Casey, but being a Christian, I’d better not say…
OmahaConservative on July 4, 2011 at 8:18 AM
I have to pray for forgiveness every time I hear anything about her. How much does your family love you if they are willing to labeled a pedophile, abuser and participant of incest to see her walk free? Let’s not talk about it, it is so disturbing.
Cindy Munford on July 4, 2011 at 8:27 AM
to be labeled. Sorry.
Cindy Munford on July 4, 2011 at 8:27 AM
Dyson is so absorbed in slavery that he can’t honestly see any value in a Constitution that failed to resolve the question.
Stengel is so absorbed in his own leftist agenda that he can’t honestly see any value in a Constitution apart from how effectively it may be used to advance that agenda.
Amanpour is pretty much with Stengel, and doesn’t see why various aspects of the Constitution should not just be summarily disregarded without amendment if she finds them less than congenial (the 2d Amendment).
From the crowd he’s stuck with, Will must sometimes wonder if he’s the last sane person on the planet. The fact that he manages to stay so calm in the face of such overwhelming idiocy is simply amazing to me.
morganfrost on July 4, 2011 at 8:31 AM
I’m all about some creative justice myself.
Bee on July 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM
That’s because he’s still a slave to his Marxist masters.
TugboatPhil on July 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM
Looks like this Mom wants to be a Mom again ;)
Siddhartha Vicious on July 4, 2011 at 9:15 AM
Dire Straits was here!..:)
Dire Straits on July 4, 2011 at 9:16 AM
Ditto that!..
Dire Straits on July 4, 2011 at 9:17 AM
I’m not much of a George Will fan, but he asks a clear straightforward question: “Can the government require Obese people to sign up for Weight-Watchers?”
The two panelists who “answer” the question conclude essentially: “If the Supreme Court says they can, they can!”
No attempt to examine whether it’s right or wrong by the panelists…just wait for someone to TELL them if it’s right or wrong.
Think about that…today we declare our DEPENDENCE!!
Justrand on July 4, 2011 at 9:19 AM
I don’t know what you mean by this statement, or what you expect from George Will. Do you actually read Will’s column every week, or do you only read the ones that get posted here and at other conservative blogs because the blog’s owners know they will generate a lot of comments? Do you expect a conservative columnist to never criticize any conservative? Or to be some sort of conservative grassroots leader, speaking at rallies and opining on Facebook every day? That’s not George Will’s job and never has been.
If you want to see conservatism distilled, explained, and defended brilliantly, and liberalism completely eviscerated, go find and watch the video of Will’s speech to CPAC last year. Almost nobody noticed it because they were too busy yapping about Mitt Romney’s speech or Sarah Palin not showing up, but George Will gave one of the great conservative speeches of all time.
rockmom on July 4, 2011 at 10:21 AM
We had better get a handle on these liberals and leftists lest this poor sick Republic die a painful death. It’s time to “fish or cut bait”.
rplat on July 4, 2011 at 11:35 AM
I wish Will, or someone, would ask why we can stretch the Constitution to protect abortion but must be literal when it comes to guns.
O/w, very good discussion. Dyson will always be held back by his obsession with race.
PattyJ on July 4, 2011 at 11:39 AM
That’s a great speech, thanks for mentioning it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhFBWw8bsAA&feature=related
EasyEight on July 4, 2011 at 11:52 AM
“You bad people better all obey the Constitution now. You better stop being such bad people now, you make me mad feel ill when you don’t obey the Constitution.”
“Stop it now..!!”
“I said STOP!!”
Mcguyver on July 4, 2011 at 12:25 PM
“Oh yea…baby. Dees Couwntry ees guud for me. Constitution good. cuh..cuh..con…contitution guud for dis Couwntry. Mexico no tengo Cawntitution. Me likee dis constitution. Me no speakee english…me speakee espanol.. My Cauwntry es Mexico. Me muy likee deese Couwntry. Me likee Cawnstitution… “
Mcguyver on July 4, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Eric Dyson is the biggest mass of Hotair I have ever seen. Having lived in Boston for the past few years, I see so-called liberal professors like this all the time.
Chudi on July 4, 2011 at 1:09 PM
So the Constitution should be ignored except for those few parts that Time likes? Such as one clause in the 14th Amendment? By the way, never questioning a federal debt (that already exists) is not the same as creating a federal debt (that doesn’t yet exist). Only Congress can authorize a federal debt. If Congress says “no more debt,” whose questioning the debt that exists now?
Fred 2 on July 4, 2011 at 1:35 PM
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the federal debt “AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW” shall not be questioned. Since the Executive cannot enact laws, any debt limit over what has already been AUTHORIZED (14.3 TRILLION), unless pursuant to an act of Congress, would not be AUTHORIZED under the 14th Amendment and thus could be and must be questioned. It would also amount to Grand Larceny by the Executive and should subject the Cabinet officials to criminal prosecution and the Executive to impeachment.
eaglewingz08 on July 4, 2011 at 1:36 PM
Not enough tea partyers are pointing out the difference between free market capitalism and cronyism.
The scream in favor of less regulation and on the other hand not demand accountability from CEO’s and corporations who are manipulating the system through their paid political connections is futile.
Cronyism is not capitalism and our system is pure cronyism.
rickyricardo on July 4, 2011 at 3:21 PM
That speech is the kind of stuff I visit this page to find. It should have been a feature article when it happened. If it wasn’t, the editors here should ask themselves how they missed it.
Pythagoras on July 4, 2011 at 3:27 PM
Apparent to anyone watching and listening, the seemingly sudden influx of MSM shows and articles and opinion pieces attacking the US Constitution as hopelessly antiquated and outmoded is no coincidental convergence, and is yet more evidence–at least to me–that the far-Left ideologues largely in charge of the federal government and mass media are applying a coordinated strategy, a methodical series of purposeful steps, in service to an agenda. One can guess the agenda easily enough.
By its nature, the Constitution limits the power of government. These people, by their nature, believe there should be no boundaries to what government can or should do. It isn’t accurate to call them Marxists since the totalitarian impulse that drives them is as old as civilization and pre-dates Marx by several thousand years.
They will keep chipping away at the Constitution for the foreseeable future, denigrating its relevance and attacking the motives and character of those who wrote it, twisting its meaning and undermining its purpose. What they don’t understand, I think, is just how much so many of us believe in it and–more importantly–how far we are willing to go to protect it.
troyriser_gopftw on July 4, 2011 at 4:12 PM
The effect that is unwanted, that is to say the symptom, is the accumulation of power by corporations. That is not the disease: it is the differences in how we treat the corporate versus the corporeal citizen that starts on the path to the symptom.
Power concentration and influence of the body politic by fictional persons can be addressed by understanding why we allow fictional persons and then asking ourselves: ‘What are the differences between fictional persons and real persons and why is there a difference in treatment between them?’ If we say a company is a ‘corporate citizen’ then it must be asked why they get different rules and regulations from actual citizens that allow the accumulation of power over time. What would be ways to alleviate the symptom, in other words, by addressing the way we think of corporations? If they are ‘citizens’ then they should have all the necessary positives and negatives of being a citizen, which means something called ‘citizenship’, which is being an individual who has a positive citizenship with a Nation. That has obligations as well as benefits to it.
I hear much of the abuses of corporations and their accumulation of wealth and power, but none ever address the root cause which is how we create the laws necessary to have such fictions be present in the first place. So why do we accept that legal fictions can go on far past the life of any individual? Or that such fictions deserve a set of speech laws different from corporeal citizens? When a legal fiction acts in real, criminal ways, then why not the ultimate penalty to them so that such fictions will either learn to live ethically with all other citizens or be extinguished? There are solutions to these problems, but they do not lie, of necessity, with the effects nor outcomes of the corporations but with how we structure society to allow differences between these fictions and those of us who have substantial life within our beings. If one complains about the effects of corporations, then offer a solution, please. They are out there but it requires that we ask of ourselves exactly what is this thing we wish to create so that it will remain viable and not become a master unto us but be wholly accountable for what it does.
ajacksonian on July 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM
I always go back to a posting (by I don’t remember who) who’s obvious left leaning bent was boiled down to …
So today, in the mist of the budget negotiations in DC, Bill Clinton resurrects this quote by suggesting a drop in corporate income tax.
Sure, when it’s all about cutting spending, we can get the Republicans to go along with Democratic spending if we throw them a goodie too … Oh Please.
J_Crater on July 4, 2011 at 6:11 PM
The 14th Amendment says that America will stand by it’s debts, but it does NOT grant the President unlimited power to incur those debts.
DANEgerus on July 4, 2011 at 7:48 PM
Ultimately the Constitution is interpreted for us by politicians, lawyers, journalists, the police and the Golden Rule adherents.
Oh, the People win a Constitutional victory here and there, but I don’t think it’s really meant much since at least the Civil War. We’re maybe on a par with European-style Liberty at this point I’d say.
Dr. ZhivBlago on July 4, 2011 at 10:48 PM
The Constitution is a contract between the people and their government.
The alternative to the contract is either anarchy or tyranny…or both.
Would anyone stand still while a bank changed the terms, conditions, and amount owed on your mortgage without your consent?? This is exactly what Liberals are trying to do to our Constitution and the terms of our citizenship.
landlines on July 5, 2011 at 12:11 AM
Like a proper liberal propaganda outlet in its death throes, Time sends along a few “FUs” to America on its way out the door. The best future to which they can aspire is not to suffer the humiliation of being sold to a website for a dollar like Newsweek.
As far as being a noted center of serious social and political comment, the news weeklies jumped the shark right around the turn of 1980, so they should be grateful for the longevity they’ve achieved, 20 years into the internet age.
Be grateful, and go away.
Adjoran on July 5, 2011 at 1:55 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2