The Constitution's Demise According to Time: Nothing to See Here

The central-government media has finally given us knuckle-draggers an explanation of the difference between war criminals and constitutionalists:  It's party affiliation, and which party is in power.

Time magazine's recent cover story "One Document, Under Siege" is clearly written as a response to the constitutional conservative movement, or as the essay says, "the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document." 

It's worth reading for one purpose only, which is to understand the curious, inconsistent and anti-intellectual thought processes by which the left views the Constitution.  Through the words of Time managing editor Richard Stengel, we come to see the internal contradictions that the Constitution must be applied strictly, but then not.  That it's to be obeyed in some instances, but then not.

Walking us through four topics of the day -- Libya, the debt ceiling, ObamaCare and immigration -- Mr. Stengel takes us through the rollercoaster thinking that is the left's view of the Constitution.

When it's for the progressive cause, "we shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it."  The Constitution is, after all, merely a "blueprint."  For the Founders, "it was a set of principles, not a code of law." 

"A constitution in and of itself guarantees nothing," writes Stengel.  "Bolshevik Russia had a constitution, as did Nazi Germany."

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, those totalitarian regimes did have constitutions.  That must make some people salivate.

As to our Libyan war, he writes:

The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works.

Mr. Stengel is right in one regard.  The President and many elected officials operate by ignoring the Constitution and other laws.  That he is comfortable that this is how "our system works" is both disturbing and revealing.

On the other hand, whether America "defaults on our national debt is not only reckless; it's probably unconstitutional." 

Aha!  Mr. Stengel has given us the key to understanding the left's interpretation of the Constitution.  I get it now, and I want all of my fellow knuckle-draggers to understand it with me.  It's a document written for the progressive movement to make what they will of it.

This makes it so much easier for us knuckle-draggers to understand the Constitution.  Thank you, central-government media.

The central-government media has finally given us knuckle-draggers an explanation of the difference between war criminals and constitutionalists:  It's party affiliation, and which party is in power.

Time magazine's recent cover story "One Document, Under Siege" is clearly written as a response to the constitutional conservative movement, or as the essay says, "the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document." 

It's worth reading for one purpose only, which is to understand the curious, inconsistent and anti-intellectual thought processes by which the left views the Constitution.  Through the words of Time managing editor Richard Stengel, we come to see the internal contradictions that the Constitution must be applied strictly, but then not.  That it's to be obeyed in some instances, but then not.

Walking us through four topics of the day -- Libya, the debt ceiling, ObamaCare and immigration -- Mr. Stengel takes us through the rollercoaster thinking that is the left's view of the Constitution.

When it's for the progressive cause, "we shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it."  The Constitution is, after all, merely a "blueprint."  For the Founders, "it was a set of principles, not a code of law." 

"A constitution in and of itself guarantees nothing," writes Stengel.  "Bolshevik Russia had a constitution, as did Nazi Germany."

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, those totalitarian regimes did have constitutions.  That must make some people salivate.

As to our Libyan war, he writes:

The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works.

Mr. Stengel is right in one regard.  The President and many elected officials operate by ignoring the Constitution and other laws.  That he is comfortable that this is how "our system works" is both disturbing and revealing.

On the other hand, whether America "defaults on our national debt is not only reckless; it's probably unconstitutional." 

Aha!  Mr. Stengel has given us the key to understanding the left's interpretation of the Constitution.  I get it now, and I want all of my fellow knuckle-draggers to understand it with me.  It's a document written for the progressive movement to make what they will of it.

This makes it so much easier for us knuckle-draggers to understand the Constitution.  Thank you, central-government media.