VIDEO: WAPO BLOGGER EZRA KLEIN SAYS THE CONSTITUTION IS CONFUSING BECAUSE IT’S, LIKE, REALLY OLD

I have pointed out before that the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein is not the brightest bulb in the circuit. Indeed, his clueless reform posts have provided fodder for HCBS since he was a blogger at TAP.

I must confess, however, that even I didn’t realize how bad it really was until I watched the following video and heard him smugly make the following assertion about the United States Constitution:

[T]he text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago.

Just for fun, let’s look at some of that “confusing? language contained in that hoary old document:

Article I, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Wow! That’s tricky stuff alright. Let’s try to decode more of this Byzantine verbiage:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years …

Yikes! How can anyone ever hope to understand such confusing verbiage? Maybe the amendments are less tricky:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …

Ruh roh! This is just as bad. I mean, it seems to suggest that even someone as stupid as Ezra Klein gets to say and write anything he likes without government interference. That can’t be right, can it?

It’s all very confusing. But what can one expect from a document written “more than 100 years ago”? I mean, that’s really old. It was, like, written before there was such a thing as Facebook. 

Comments 2

  1. ECM wrote:

    Wow, this dude is going to be hearing about this for the rest of his career–talk about an unforced error.

    Posted 30 Dec 2010 at 6:27 pm
  2. Ryan Colpaart wrote:

    I’ve decide to utilize my marginal bully pulpit in defense of what Ezra Klein was implying. He obviously was not clear enough; perhaps an analogy would do the trick:

    Posted 31 Dec 2010 at 2:23 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *