The Constitution is confusing because it stands in the way of the schemes you leftists put out there.

Ezra complains about the confusion of the Constitution, yet he praises the 2300 pages of ObamaCare

There were like 13 states when the Constitution was written. I can’t imagine the founders wanted Wyoming’s 563,000 people to have the exact same amount of influence in the Senate as 37,254,000. To put it in perspective, a voter in Wyoming has about 66 times the influence of a voter in California.

*California’s 37,254,000

That actually frightens me…

Let me simplify it for you….

Norah should show up and never talk . At all .
Klein has a real grasp of the sweep of history there .

“I can’t imagine the founders wanted Wyoming’s 563,000 people to have the exact same amount of influence in the Senate as 37,254,000. ”

Gosh, that’s exactly what I think they wanted. Didn’t Publius mention this in Federalist 51?

After all, they wanted a “republican” government (the only type of government mentioned in the Constitution) since they were wary of – if not hostile to – democracies.

t

Publius219 said:
There were like 13 states when the Constitution was written. I can’t imagine the founders wanted Wyoming’s 563,000 people to have the exact same amount of influence in the Senate as 37,254,000. To put it in perspective, a voter in Wyoming has about 66 times the influence of a voter in California.

that is why they put in the constituition, so big states wouldn’t rule over the small states

I always listen to opposing points of view.

Ezra Klein makes me dunk my head in a bucket of water just to be aware of anything he’s involved with.

Jeez! This Brain Surgeon appears on MSNBC often!
That ‘splanes it…

cjd ohio 1 said:
t

that is why they put in the constituition, so big states wouldn’t rule over the small states

cjd ohio 1 said:
t

But the proportionality between then and now is vastly different.
that is why they put in the constituition, so big states wouldn’t rule over the small states

Do all the great works of 100+ years ago confuse Ezra? His he supposd to be held up as smart by MSNBC or something??? Oh that 100 year old stuff is SO hard to read. Poor Ezra.

SteveMG said:
“I can’t imagine the founders wanted Wyoming’s 563,000 people to have the exact same amount of influence in the Senate as 37,254,000. ”

Gosh, that’s exactly what I think they wanted. Didn’t Publius mention this in Federalist 51?

After all, they wanted a “republican” government (the only type of government mentioned in the Constitution) since they were wary of – if not hostile to – democracies.

Oh please, modern-day lay Constitutional scholar, I don’t need the lesson on tyranny of the majority vs. tyranny of the minority and so on and so forth. My point is. The fucking thing was written 250 years ago. A lot of things have changed that they could not have possibly imagined. The idea that reverting back to what we did in 1776 will magically restore America is delusional. Literal Constitutionalism is as dumb as literal biblism. People who refer to the Constitution regularly always conveniently ignore the judicial interpretations since then.

And yes, I realize it wasn’t exactly 250 years ago, but if you were going to point that out, you should probably just unplug your computer and go read coloring books.

Ezra ought to ask some of his Journolist pals to explain the Constitution to him. Oh wait, that wouldn’t work either, since they are just as confused as he is.

Publius219 said:
My point is. The fucking thing was written 250 years ago. A lot of things have changed that they could not have possibly imagined. .

One thing they did not imagine was how much stupider the average American would become. Or maybe they did anticipate this, so they created a governing document that would try to prevent the Stupid Majority from doing too much damage.

Ezra, listen up.
1+1=2, 1+2=3, i before e except after c. LMAO

“The fucking thing was written 250 years ago. A lot of things have changed that they could not have possibly imagined. ”

The fundamental nature of human beings hasn’t changed in 250 years. That’s the basis for what they put into the Constitution.

They wanted a mixed government because they didn’t trust human beings to use the powers given to them. That’s the fundamental principle behind the form of government they created.

You may think that is old fashioned “fucking” (as you so eloquently put it) thinking. But others think it was a wise basis for making a government.

J Baustian said:
One thing they did not imagine was how much stupider the average American would become. Or maybe they did anticipate this, so they created a governing document that would try to prevent the Stupid Majority from doing too much damage.

Unfortunately we’ve been ruled by a stupid supermajority for the last…i don’t know, 40 years?

Wow!

And he represents the lib intelligentsia.

No wonder they lost in 11/2010.

WaPo’s Ezra Klein: The Constitution Is Confusing “Because It Was Written More Than 100 Years Ago”

…Gee, I guess that “explains” why NOTHING the lunatic-left d-crat socialists do complies with the Constitution (or Bill of Rights, or federal immigration law, or…..)

Publius219 said:
I can’t imagine the founders wanted Wyoming’s 563,000 people to have the exact same amount of influence in the Senate as 37,254,000. To put it in perspective, a voter in Wyoming has about 66 times the influence of a voter in California.

That’s why they have the House is based on the population of each state. To do the same in the Senate would cause the big states to rule.

You really need to read the Constitution. Maybe you and Klein can do it together.

WaPo’s Ezra Klein: The Constitution Is Confusing “Because It Was Written More Than 100 Years Ago”

Yeah, that’s why no one reads Huckleberry Finn, The Inferno, Moby Dick, The Red Badge of Courage, Leaves of Grass, Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, etc.

The direct election of Senators didn’t occur until after 1913; the Senate was not close to “representative” of state populations. Even after direct election appeared, the Senate has been dominated by an elite from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. (Currently, there are 18 Harvard attendees in the Senate.) Our Supreme Court is similarly insular.

The “66 times more influential” argument regarding Wyoming Senators is somewhat accurate. Of course, one argument some in California make is that splitting the state in thirds would help restore the historical ratio of largest state to smallest. The problem with that is you would never get Texas or Florida to do the same. Plus, not everyone wants to see Texas or California have six, eight, or more Senators. That might not be so desirable. In effect, the Senate limits the power of Texas as much as it limits California.

Other options have been suggested, including making the Senate similar to the House, but at a higher population threshold. This is a common practice among the state legislatures, such as one state senate seat per five assembly / house / commons members. Since the Senate was modified in 1913, no reason that cannot be done again.

Because the House sets its own size, and 435 was established in 1911, there is no reason why the House couldn’t expand or set a new “standard” such as 1:125K or some such thing.

Scott_in_MI said:
Ezra complains about the confusion of the Constitution, yet he praises the 2300 pages of ObamaCare

Scott, my comment is here simply b/c that deserves repeating!

And then she helped him put the straw in his juicebox.

Dave Noland said:
Dave Noland says:
December 30, 2010 at 3:38 pm Dave Noland(Quote)

STFU, you lib POS

Dave Noland said:
Nobody has this much time unless you’re unemployed

That would be you job, trog!

Yes, that Constitution is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long for an cretin like you to read.

Dave Noland said:
YOu haven’t read shit. THe senate is a sham. Why are they’re a shit ton of parliamentary procedures that aren’t located anywhere in the constitution? Like the 60 vote rule that saved the GOPs ass this year. Without that rule the GOP would be GONE.

LOL

You libs got creamed on 11/02/2010, loser.

Lost 6 more Senate seats and the House and 12 governorships.

Trash like you are out, son!

Dave Noland said:
Dave Noland says:
December 30, 2010 at 3:42 pm Dave Noland(Quote)

Because intelligent people don’t have to, you MFing POS !

LOL

Publius219 said:
There were like 13 states when the Constitution was written. I can’t imagine the founders wanted Wyoming’s 563,000 people to have the exact same amount of influence in the Senate as 37,254,000. To put it in perspective, a voter in Wyoming has about 66 times the influence of a voter in California.

Actually, it appears that you don’t know much about the Constitution. When it was written, Senators were appointed by the State, not elected by the people of the state. Hope that helps.

Dave Noland said:
I’ve read it a hundred more times than you

Cereal boxes don’t count, son!

Dave Noland said:
#

#
Dave Noland says:
December 30, 2010 at 3:44 pm Dave Noland(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

You lost LIBBY!

Big time.

As a matter of fact, a certain person said the Dims got a shellacking.

Do you know who said that , troll?

LOL

Dave Noland said:
Dave Noland says:
December 30, 2010 at 3:48 pm Dave Noland(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Dave is a homophobic!

Look a lib homophobic!

I bet he is a racist too. matter of fact, I know he is.

Publius219 said:
There were like 13 states when the Constitution was written. I can’t imagine the founders wanted Wyoming’s 563,000 people to have the exact same amount of influence in the Senate as 37,254,000. To put it in perspective, a voter in Wyoming has about 66 times the influence of a voter in California.

I think they did although they had no idea what the final parameters of the country were going to be. Our Constitution is simply brilliant b/c the problem of large vs small states in a representative system were the same irregardless of what particular states with what particular populations are in play. Virginia had a 10 to 1 ratio over both Deleware and Rhode Island at that time and was the California of today. I do think they noticed that, don’t you?

There was much debate and discussion and the solution, our bicameral system, they devised was brilliant and one for the ages.

notsofast said:
That’s why they have the House is based on the population of each state. To do the same in the Senate would cause the big states to rule.

You really need to read the Constitution. Maybe you and Klein can do it together.

It isn’t anymore. It has been mandated at 435 since 1913, I believe. Nice try.

Grammie said:
I think they did although they had no idea what the final parameters of the country were going to be. Our Constitution is simply brilliant b/c the problem of large vs small states in a representative system were the same irregardless of what particular states with what particular populations are in play. Virginia had a 10 to 1 ratio over both Deleware and Rhode Island at that time and was the California of today. I do think they noticed that, don’t you?

There was much debate and discussion and the solution, our bicameral system, they devised was brilliant and one for the ages.

10 does not equal 66.

Dave Noland said:
Why are THEY’RE a shit ton of parliamentary procedures that aren’t located anywhere in the constitution?

and we’re stupid.

TeaPartyPatriot said:
WaPo’s Ezra Klein: The Constitution Is Confusing “Because It Was Written More Than 100 Years Ago”

You know what’s really hard to understand? Karl Marx’s Das Kapital. Practically everything by Hegel or Rousseau or Hobbes.

What’s still fairly easy to understand, if one has a brain? Locke and Adam Smith and de Tocqueville.

So let’s see if Ezra Klein can explain Marx in 4600 words or so. He probably thinks he can, but I say no.

Dave Noland said:
YOu haven’t read shit. THe senate is a sham. Why are they’re a shit ton of parliamentary procedures that aren’t located anywhere in the constitution? Like the 60 vote rule that saved the GOPs ass this year. Without that rule the GOP would be GONE.

Your brilliant memory has failed you — there were 60 Democrats plus the VP for a year, until the election of Scott Brown.

And the reason the filibuster is not going away is because the Democrats know that they will be back in the minority, probably in two years. Yes, the GOP will have a majority; it will not be GONE.

There are possible reforms to the filibuster rule, that would make it more effective. Harry Reid can impose those reforms unilaterally. Let’s see whether he does or not.

Publius219 said:
10 does not equal 66.

No, but it represented a large disparity and that was the driving principle behind the system they created. The peoples house or House of Representatives, were based very roughly on population. The Senate, allocated representation to the individual states. The tension between the two prevents a tyranny of either the large and powerful states or of the small and weak.

Besides which, we wouldn’t have had the USA without it.

Publius219 said:
It isn’t anymore. It has been mandated at 435 since 1913, I believe. Nice try.

Actually, there were 437 after Alaska and Hawaii joined the USA but was reduced back to 435 based on the 1960 census and reapportionment. The number is not set by the Constitution. It’s set by Congress itself.

The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution.Constitutional interpretation is the issue here not it’s interpretation by one person or one political party trying to ensure their agenda is carried out.

There is no “confusion” just interpretation and the founding father’s solved that issue.

Publius219 said:
Oh please, modern-day lay Constitutional scholar, I don’t need the lesson on tyranny of the majority vs. tyranny of the minority and so on and so forth. My point is. The fucking thing was written 250 years ago. A lot of things have changed that they could not have possibly imagined. The idea that reverting back to what we did in 1776 will magically restore America is delusional. Literal Constitutionalism is as dumb as literal biblism. People who refer to the Constitution regularly always conveniently ignore the judicial interpretations since then. And yes, I realize it wasn’t exactly 250 years ago, but if you were going to point that out, you should probably just unplug your computer and go read coloring books.

So why even have one? We should just use it as wall paper if we’re not going to follow it.

Dave Noland said:
Well a drubbing is when you take everything. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party saw to it that you wouldn’t get the Senate and you sure as hell won’t win the Presidency. Do you get paid a penny a word?

Who’s been reading Olbermann’s post election talking points? Dave Noland has.

If my beloved Lions happen to beat the Vikings 52-14 this Sunday, would that be called a drubbing? Of course it would. Even though the Vikings would have gotten a few victories through the 2 touchdowns, they’d still get their asses kicked. Just like November of 2010

In a reasonable world , after the Journolist scandal , Klein would be bagging groceries somewhere now .

Leave it up to Ezra Klein to come up with such duplicitous double-speak. The Constitution is confusing only to those who don’t like what it say, and want to impose their own agenda on to a document where it has no place. So the folks at the Washington Post and MSNBC will always be confused by the legacy of our founding fathers. The rest of us find the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be eminently clear and unambiguous.

Only a leftist like Klein can misunderstand “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States.” Or “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Or “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.” Etc. etc. etc.

Come on, Ezra, just be honest. Admit that you (and your MSNBC buddies) DISLIKE these very clearly articulated rights, and stop pretending that you don’t understand them.

Christopher Scott Wyatt said:
The direct election of Senators didn’t occur until after 1913; the Senate was not close to “representative” of state populations. Even after direct election appeared, the Senate has been dominated by an elite from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. (Currently, there are 18 Harvard attendees in the Senate.) Our Supreme Court is similarly insular.

The “66 times more influential” argument regarding Wyoming Senators is somewhat accurate. Of course, one argument some in California make is that splitting the state in thirds would help restore the historical ratio of largest state to smallest. The problem with that is you would never get Texas or Florida to do the same. Plus, not everyone wants to see Texas or California have six, eight, or more Senators. That might not be so desirable. In effect, the Senate limits the power of Texas as much as it limits California.

Other options have been suggested, including making the Senate similar to the House, but at a higher population threshold. This is a common practice among the state legislatures, such as one state senate seat per five assembly / house / commons members. Since the Senate was modified in 1913, no reason that cannot be done again.

Because the House sets its own size, and 435 was established in 1911, there is no reason why the House couldn’t expand or set a new “standard” such as 1:125K or some such thing.

Dead on analysis!

It’s always nice seeing conservatives here spout nonsense.

dhg said:
The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution.Constitutional interpretation is the issue here not it’s interpretation by one person or one political party trying to ensure their agenda is carried out.

There is no “confusion” just interpretation and the founding father’s solved that issue.

How did they “solve the issue” by authoring a fundamentally in-concise nuanced document? Using your premise, we shouldn’t need a Supreme Court to “interpret” the amendments since the language would be explicit and straight forward.

Publius219 said:
There were like 13 states when the Constitution was written. I can’t imagine the founders wanted Wyoming’s 563,000 people to have the exact same amount of influence in the Senate as 37,254,000. To put it in perspective, a voter in Wyoming has about 66 times the influence of a voter in California.

notsofast said:
That’s why they have the House is based on the population of each state. To do the same in the Senate would cause the big states to rule.

You really need to read the Constitution. Maybe you and Klein can do it together.

Publius219 said:
It isn’t anymore. It has been mandated at 435 since 1913, I believe. Nice try.

And the number of each state’s representatives is determined by population. So California has more than 50 reps in the House and Wyoming has one.

Judge Mental said:
And the number of each state’s representatives is determined by population. So California has more than 50 reps in the House and Wyoming has one.

But California’s representation in the House is not proportional to the difference in size between it and Wyoming. Even if it is 55-1, it should be 66-1.

Publius219 said:
But California’s representation in the House is not proportional to the difference in size between it and Wyoming. Even if it is 55-1, it should be 66-1.

Every ten years, after the census is completed, the number apportioned to each of the states is changed. For instance, some of the southern states whose populations have increased in the last ten years (such as Texas and Florida) will be getting additional representatives. You really have heard this?

Perhaps it should be 66-1 based on the relative populations of California and Wyoming, but you can’t give Wyoming less than one representative.

Judge Mental said:
You really have heard this?

Oops. You really haven’t heard this?

Judge Mental said:
Every ten years, after the census is completed, the number apportioned to each of the states is changed. For instance, some of the southern states whose populations have increased in the last ten years (such as Texas and Florida) will be getting additional representatives. You really have heard this?

Perhaps it should be 66-1 based on the relative populations of California and Wyoming, but you can’t give Wyoming less than one representative.

Right, and because it is legislated that the # must remain 435, and because each state must have one, inevitably it will become disproportional, and it has. So small, unpopulated states can not only wield disproportionate influence in the Senate, but also in the House, which was designed to be proportional. And how do you change it? Legislation, which would, of course, have to go through the House and Senate. Anyone think that’s happening any time soon?

Publius219 said:
Right, and because it is legislated that the # must remain 435, and because each state must have one, inevitably it will become disproportional, and it has. So small, unpopulated states can not only wield disproportionate influence in the Senate, but also in the House, which was designed to be proportional. And how do you change it? Legislation, which would, of course, have to go through the House and Senate. Anyone think that’s happening any time soon?

Probably not. It’s one of the disadvantages of living in a heavily populated state.

Grammie said:
I think they did although they had no idea what the final parameters of the country were going to be. Our Constitution is simply brilliant b/c the problem of large vs small states in a representative system were the same irregardless of what particular states with what particular populations are in play. Virginia had a 10 to 1 ratio over both Deleware and Rhode Island at that time and was the California of today. I do think they noticed that, don’t you?

There was much debate and discussion and the solution, our bicameral system, they devised was brilliant and one for the ages.

It is brilliant…where have you been Grammie? It is called proportional representation. Before you gerrymander, it’s actually a really good idea.

Only thing is…why doesn’t the District of Columbia have a vote?

Gasket said:
Gasket says:
December 30, 2010 at 6:08 pm Gasket(Quote)

Boy, some one gave you a full dose of “No brains”, son. And it shows.

dhg said:
The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution.Constitutional interpretation is the issue here not it’s interpretation by one person or one political party trying to ensure their agenda is carried out. There is no “confusion” just interpretation and the founding father’s solved that issue.

Actually, the Supreme Court didn’t take the right to interpret the Constitution until Marbury v. Madison. Until then each branch of the government felt it had that right. President Jefferson didn’t contest this because the decision was in his favor.

Ezra Klein isn’t wrong, he’s just missing the point. Like many of the Republican Party’s tactics, waving the Constitution around is good politics, as it appeals to the masses who believe America is straying from the intentions of its Founding Fathers. But in practice, such histrionic displays of alleged patriotism will only further enrage the blindly faithful and context-averse followers of the GOP by giving Republicans a seemingly legitimate reason to block Democrat-sponsored legislation in the 112th Congress. http://bit.ly/ffJcRp

muddypolitics said:
But in practice, such histrionic displays of alleged patriotism will only further enrage the blindly faithful and context-averse followers of the GOP by giving Republicans a seemingly legitimate reason to block Democrat-sponsored legislation in the 112th Congress.

As opposed to the 111th where the elephants were blocked from bringing seemingly legitimate bills? I am not saying the practice is right, but lets at least wait and see if the Republicans do what Pelosi and Reid did. The Democrats will still have the Senate and the White House.

Can I just ask one question, why are the Democrats playing the victim card, as if the Republicans could have stopped anything, especially in the first year of the 111th. I got so tired of “the Republicans are the reason we did not get (fill in the blank)”. I guess we should get ready for two more years of that drivel. And before you say it, I am not an Elephant, I am a pissed off Libertarian.

Where did this guy go to school? The Constitution is not “hard to read”, it is simply written in literate English. Oh, and the penmanship is superb.

Let’s start with this scholars Constitutional time frame. One hundred years? The “necessary and proper clause” refers only to matters within the confines a particular power granting clause in the Constitution, in which the law is proper and necessary to carry out. That’s all the hell that term means. It is NOT ambiguous, unless of course, the Supreme Court get hold of it, then it means anything they deem it to mean!

…there are needed changes in the constitution/ For example. Washington D.C. needs representation in the Senate and for the life of me I do not know why the voices of the people are not heard in Washington D.C. ..the constitution should reflect the voices of common and kind minds with this region that holds the office of the PResient of the United States.

I believe each state should have representatives that represent districts with a population of 10000 and the give each state an odd number of senators…therefore the voices of common and kind minded citizens are heard…we would have found out earlier that the Tea Party was more of an advertisers wet dream then an actually event

I too believe this multi year old document the constitution was created doing war and expects of the constitution reflects that opinion for instance the 2nd amendment …get a gun, you can have a gun, get upset and use a gun amendment..I have an understanding of Mr. Kiein opinion