TexasCHLforum.com

Liberal blogger Ezra Klein, who is also a reporter for the Washington Post, states on MSNBC that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything" and is confusing because it's over 100 years old.

I'm just....speechless.

http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-bl ... years-old/

Immature ignorant teens say the same about any old literature ... Example: that Bible is confusing, it's in English instead of "ghetto language" and it's confusing and outdated .... was written back when there was human trafficking and prostitutes and homosexuals and drugs and alcoholics and bullies and girls wore makeup and some cultures did piercings and tattoos and some had ...

Kythas wrote:Liberal blogger Ezra Klein, who is also a reporter for the Washington Post, states on MSNBC that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything"

You're making mountains outta molehills. I hate to defend the guy but you took what he said out of context. That's their game, not ours. He said that the reading of the constitution by the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, is a "gimmick" and "has no binding power over anything". He did not say that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything"

Winchster wrote:

Kythas wrote:Liberal blogger Ezra Klein, who is also a reporter for the Washington Post, states on MSNBC that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything"

You're making mountains outta molehills. I hate to defend the guy but you took what he said out of context. That's their game, not ours. He said that the reading of the constitution by the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, is a "gimmick" and "has no binding power over anything". He did not say that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything"

Winchster wrote:

Kythas wrote:Liberal blogger Ezra Klein, who is also a reporter for the Washington Post, states on MSNBC that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything"

You're making mountains outta molehills. I hate to defend the guy but you took what he said out of context. That's their game, not ours. He said that the reading of the constitution by the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, is a "gimmick" and "has no binding power over anything". He did not say that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything"

I heard him say "It has no binding power over anything". I guess it's open to interpretation as to whether he means the Constitution itself or the reading of the Constitution.

In practice, maybe the blogger is right, knowing that most Federal spending and more than 90% of Federal laws contradict the US Constitution.

Kythas wrote:Liberal blogger Ezra Klein, who is also a reporter for the Washington Post, states on MSNBC that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything" and is confusing because it's over 100 years old.

I'm just....speechless.

http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-bl ... years-old/

There goes his 1st amendment rights!

Kythas wrote:

Winchster wrote:

Kythas wrote:Liberal blogger Ezra Klein, who is also a reporter for the Washington Post, states on MSNBC that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything"

You're making mountains outta molehills. I hate to defend the guy but you took what he said out of context. That's their game, not ours. He said that the reading of the constitution by the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, is a "gimmick" and "has no binding power over anything". He did not say that the Constitution has "no binding power over anything"

I heard him say "It has no binding power over anything". I guess it's open to interpretation as to whether he means the Constitution itself or the reading of the Constitution.

You are correct. You heard him say that in response to a question about wether or not the reading by the HOR was a gimmick.
He did follow that up with the stupid remark about the constitution being confusing.

What he said was "it" has no binding power on anything. Did he mean 'it' as the action of the reading or the Constitution itself? That is a huge difference and is the question.



What is the definition of 'is?'

If you really want to confuse him, tell him he doesn't have the right to say that. If he argues that he does, ask him what gives him that right.

Winchster wrote:He said that the reading of the constitution by the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, is a "gimmick" and "has no binding power over anything".

So, if I have someone read TC545 to me, It magically loses its authority and I can drive as fast as I want down the left side of the road?

How do I prove to the cop that it has been read to me?

KD5NRH wrote:

Winchster wrote:He said that the reading of the constitution by the House of Representatives, for the first time in history, is a "gimmick" and "has no binding power over anything".

So, if I have someone read TC545 to me, It magically loses its authority and I can drive as fast as I want down the left side of the road?

How do I prove to the cop that it has been read to me?

Seriously?

I give up. I was trying to interject logic into a passionate argument and it failed. Y'all are going to believe what you want and I don't care to argue with people who completely disregard the facts.

I do believe the guy made some stupid remarks about the constitution being confusing.

Peace, out.

The Constitution is a road block to the liberal agenda,but they regulate around it.

Reading the Constitution aloud at the start of the new Congress may well be a gimmick, but it has more value than, for example, the late Sen. Byrd standing and talking about his dog Billy for hours. It's at least tacit recognition that there IS a "supreme law of the land" that they ought to be following.

I've heard that the new House leadership is going to impose a rule that each and every bill has to have a clause explicitly stating where Constitutional power is granted to the Feds to be legislating whatever is in the bill. This sounds good - it's very encouraging to see this kind of thing now.

BUT . . . the new Congress hasn't been sworn in yet. We'll have to wait and see what actually happens, so I'm going to hold my expectations in check. Maybe - just maybe - the GOP finally "gets it." Or . . . they'll simple revert to form and behave as Democrat Lite. Time will tell.