Ezra Klein: Constitution too hard to understand

Ezra Klein is one of the goto guys on the Left for all things policy related and he is being asked to talk about how the Republicans will have the Constitution read aloud in Congress. He says it’s a gimmick, but then he says this:

The issue with the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think they’re following it. The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago.

Ah that’s the problem. Liberals are just stupid! That would explain a lot you know. This whole separation of Church and state has been completely misinterpreted and it’s implementation stands to support Klein’s reasoning here. I’ve always thought the first amendment was pretty dang clear, but I guess I never realized how difficult it was being a liberal trying to read those 100+ year old documents.

(H/T Stephen Gutowski)

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Bsm138

    Rush is so dead on about this guy and the left in general, but he always makes fun of Klein mocking all the left news people of their praise of the “best young political mind of our age ahhhhh brilliant up and comer Ezzzzzzra Klein”

  • Jimbo

    Since this was on msnbc I would imagine maybe 5 people watched it. Also if this idiot does not understand the Constitution I recommend some college classes at Hillsdale College or read Imprimis from Hillsdale College.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe 5 people watched it on TV, but thanks to conservative bloggers (RS!) a bunch more of us are getting to see the idiocy exposed. Hard to understand?! Really?!

  • Conservative Hippie

    Wow! What a Fool! I’d wager that idiot has never read the Constitution. Now Obamacare, THAT’s confusing!

  • Conservative Hippie

    Wow! What a Fool! I’d wager that idiot has never read the Constitution. Now Obamacare, THAT’s confusing!

  • I must cut this guy some slack…

    …nearly EVERYTHING is “too hard to understand” ~ when your head has been up yer arse (or someone else’s) for SO LONG and SO FAR… that you actually think that’s how air smells.

    CM Sackett

  • I must cut this guy some slack…

    …nearly EVERYTHING is “too hard to understand” ~ when your head has been up yer arse (or someone else’s) for SO LONG and SO FAR… that you actually think that’s how air smells.

    CM Sackett

  • they used to say same thing about Bible before the Lutheran reformation, in order to keep the peons subservient to Kings etc. A tyrant is a tyrant. Let people read the Constitution and/or the Bible, they are straight forward to read for a reason

    • Gboyz

      No Doubt! If we can understand the Bible today, then what does that say about this guy’s capability of internalizing information?

      • Mepluribusunum

        So true…our freedom comes from God, not some gubment.

    • Anonymous


    • Anonymous


  • Diamondback

    Well maybe he should’ve gone to a university that teaches the basics and reality instead of socialist utopian fantasies.

  • Diamondback

    Whether it’s “too hard to understand” or not, let me remind Mr. Klien of the Constitution’s importance to this country:

    EVERY member of the Armed Forces, political electee, political appointee, government worker etc. etc. in this country is REQUIRED to swear an oath to “protect, defend and uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.”

    Congress better get back to a foundation in the Constitution and study the actual history of our founding for the “original intent” context or there WILL BE an armed uprising in this country within the next ten years!

    Keep stockpiling battle weapons and ammo boys, we’re gonna need all we can get before this is all over. Also powder, bullets, primers and cases in case the feds are successful in restricting ammo production, importation and distribution.

    Just sayin’

    • Jimbo

      dback- Spot on my friend. Spot on.

    • Anonymous

      And how in the world do you swear an oath to “protect, defend and uphold the Constitution” if you can’t understand it? I hope they read it out loud before every stinkin’ session just to make the progressives squirm in their seats.
      I just try to imagine sitting through those sessions without coming to hate humanity.

  • “it has no binding power on anything”?


    • I think he meant them reading it aloud, however I do wonder how he would know if in fact it’s to confusing to understand!

    • moonbatkiller

      i asked myself the same thing.

  • Linkmeister2

    I’ll bet the 1st amendment will become a lot easier to read if Mr. Klein feels his rights to free speech are being violated by an opposing viewpoint.

    Liberals are good about trumpeting their right to free speech when it attacks a conservative point of view but when the shoe is on the other foot, the Constitution becomes “hard to understand” and “confusing.”

  • The separation of Church and state has been misinterpreted.But we have liars and frauds like David Barton to thank for that.

    • “separation of Church and state” does not appear in the Constitution.

      The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment do, however.

      • That they do.And they prevent religion from interfering with the people’s business of government.There by,creating a separation.The Court has upheld this many times.

        • Bsm138

          It doesn’t PREVENT religion from anything just like you don’t have the right not to be offended (Sharpton). It was written preventing government from interfering with religion.

          Funny how when the topic is original intent you liberals run to “the courts the courts!!!! precedent!!!!”

          • It prevents religion from interfering with the government.It doesn’t prevent the government from interfering with religion though.

            Funny how conservatives that don’t buy into dominionism are outed as “liberals”.And you are aware that the Court is there to rule on matters of Constitutional matters? Right? Funny how much the far right hates the Constitution and wants to rewrite it almost as quickly as the far left does.But let’s look at separation..

            In 1811 Pres Madison (you know the father of the Constitution) used his first two vetoes to stop two acts of Congress in regard to religion.He justified these vetoes on the grounds that setting aside money or land for a church violated the Establishment Clause.

            “February 21, 1811.

            Having examined and considered the bill entitled “An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia,” I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

            Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.” The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.

            Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.

            To the House of Representatives of the United States:

            February 28, 1811.

            Having examined and considered the bill entitled “An act for the relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory,” I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:

            Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.”


            Both vetoes were overwhelming upheld by Congress.What is more is that both vetoes were also upheld by the Churches affected

            “On April 27 and May 4, 1811, two North Carolina Baptist churches wrote to President Madison about his veto:


            The Baptist Church on Neels Creek in Cumberland County in the State of North Carolina having Received intelligence Respecting the Affair of the Baptist Church at Salem meeting house in the mississippi Territory Considering the said affair as proceeding from Some of our Religious Connections and that the Same is not Consistent with the Spiritual interest of Religion and that the tendency of Such a procedure if perpetuated would inevitably give to Religious Societies an undue weight and Corrupt influence in public affairs at large and diminish Religious enlargement impairing our civil and Religious liberties and in fine Contaminate our national morals we therefore desire to assure you that we entertain a high Sense of and Confidence in your illustrious objection against the Bill wherein we humbly conceive as eminent an Instance of patriotism have displayed as in any occurrence of the kind.

            Signed by order and in behalf of Conference

            Jesse Jones

            The Baptist Church on Black Creek in Johnston County in the State of north Carolina having heard the above Read and approbated the Same.

            Signed by order and in behalf of Conference.

            May the 4–1811”

            And Madison thanked them in return

            “June 3, 1811

            I have recd. fellow Citizens your address, approving my Objection to the Bill contain[in]g a grant of public land, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House Missippi Terry. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself. Among the various religious Societies in our Country, none have been more vigilant or constant in maintain[in]g that distinction, than the Society of which you make a part, and it is an honourable proof of your sincerity & integrity, that you are as ready to do so, in a case favoring the interest of your brethren, as in other cases. It is but just, at the same time, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, to remark that their application to the Natl. Legislature does not appear to have contemplated a grant of the Land in question, but on terms that might be equitable to the public as well as to themselves. Accept my friendly respects”


            Now remember,this is twenty plus years after the Constitution was written.Most of the Founders had moved on and most of the member of Congress had nothing to do with the Framing,but yet they upheld Madisons vetoes.So you have to ask yourself did the previous Houses of Congress and presidents don’t understand what they had wrote or is is that christian nationalists of the present day don’t understand it?

            But let’s get back to Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists and how it relates to the laws of this land.

            Jefferson in his letter was not taking about the government controlling religion but rather religion controlling government.The Baptist of Danbury saw this first hand in Connecticut which was controlled by the Congregationalist Church.They wanted religion out of government so they could practice freely their religion without the Congregationalists or the state restricting them.They had no desire to go to a church on Sunday just to have a preacher sign their attendence papers and they didn’t want to play taxes (a tithe in all but name) to a church they didn’t belong to.His letter is about getting religion out of government.Unless you buy what David Barton is selling,but he is lying.

            Danbury Baptist Letter to Jefferson


            Which brings us to 1878.The mormons challenged the Federal government’s law that banned the evil and dirty practice of slavery otherwise known as polygamy.The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act banned polygamy and when a mormon known as George Reynolds was arrested for polygamy he sued the Federal government for violating his religious rights.He lost his case badly,only one Justice sided with him.Chief Justice Morrison Waite writing the majority opinion stated

            “Upon this charge and refusal to charge the question is raised, whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification of an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. The inquiry is not as to the power of Congress to prescribe criminal laws for the Territories, but as to the guilt of one who knowingly violates a law which has been properly enacted, if he entertains a religious belief that the law is wrong.

            Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

            The word “religion” is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed….

            Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions.

            This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a “Memorial and Remonstrance,” which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated “that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,” was not within the cognizance of civil government. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, “for establishing religious freedom,” drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital “that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,” it is declared “that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” In these two sentences is found the true distinetion between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State…..

            At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, — I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

            Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society…. ”


            Odd how a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court dierctly quoted Jefferson’s letter in his ruling.In 1878,67 years after Madison used his veto power the Supreme Court used their Constitutional power to define a wall of seperation.Curious how they also quote one of Madison’s writing on seperation of church and state.

            How about we move foward 70 years to 1947 and Everson v. Board of Education,which was a case about taxpayer money and religious schooling.

            “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.” Justice Hugo Black

            Huh? Another Justice of the Supreme Court quoting Jefferson? Curiouser and curiouser.But I’m sure if O’Donnell (Christie,not this MSNBC host) knew anything about the Supreme Court we’d all be the wiser for it.

            Which brings us back to Madison.He wrote the Constitution with an eye to a seperation of church and
            state.To say otherwise is a lie.And the Supreme Court (along with most of the Founders) agree with this.


            Madison’s Detached Memoranda laying out his case against chaplains and thanksgiving holidays.


            Jefferson’s letter to the Baptist


            Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” as quoted in the Reynolds case


            • DisturbingBehavior

              Blah blah blah, I’ll believe the BS on separation of church and state when several of these items occur.

              And most this comes from Hugo Black’s decision: “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.”

              1. donations to religious organizations are no longer tax deductible (Government subsidizing religion. what should be from the heart is looked upon as more of a financial benefit).
              2. The military removes all religious services from bases and operations. (Government should not be paying for religion in the military. It is up to soldiers to seek their own sources, not for the government to provide chaplains)
              3. Politicians need to stop advocating religious causes (Democrats and republicans do this, even Nancy Pelosi was using religious references often and asked religious organizations to support her legislation)

              Frankly, I don’t want any of these to happen. Donations are key to the continuation of religious organizations. The military has a rich tradition of religious activities involved with service. And religion is an important to many constituents of politicians, so it is a factor when working with the community that elected him or her.

              I just get so sick of the of those who take the wall of separation as being freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. And Hugo Black’s decision would consider the first two points I made correct and the current practice unconstitutional. I don’t like Hugo Black’s ruling because it disregarded tradition and intent. The dissenting opinion (on a 5-4 decision, so such a decision could be overturned in time) is a much more fitting into the intent of the separation of church and state that was and is still practiced:

              “The funds used here were raised by taxation. The Court does not dispute nor could it that their use does in fact give aid and encouragement to religious instruction. It only concludes that this aid is not ‘support’ in law. But Madison and Jefferson were concerned with aid and support in fact not as a legal conclusion ‘entangled in precedents.’ Here parents pay money to send their children to parochial schools and funds raised by taxation are used to reimburse them. This not only helps the children to get to school and the parents to send them. It aids them in a substantial way to get the very thing which they are sent to the particular school to secure, namely, religious training and teaching.”

              Under Hugo Black’s ruling, alternative education programs, which allow students to receive the money and choose which school they go to, could be curtailed if the private school is funded by a religious organization. The Everson v. Board of Education case is not far off from that exact scenario involving reimbursement of public transportation to a private school.

              • Anonymous

                It nauseates me to watch Pelosi talk religion….and to hear her say the words “the American people”. Like she gives a rat’s butt about the American people or God.

            • DisturbingBehavior

              BTW, it’s nice to see you again Mickey, I knew I saw this post before.


              What a coincidence!?

              • KeninMontana

                I have been pondering that exact thought since this “Ploughjogger” appeared on the site.

            • KeninMontana

              It’s really not difficult to understand,written in common words for common men (and women) in common terms, for example,”In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control,qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.” – Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol 1, 451. XV, Justice Joseph Story. If that is you Mickey, as a student of history you should be ashamed of yourself in your overlooking of what is considered to be the most exhaustive work on the US Constitution and considered to be the “go to” work for its interpretation. You might even consider asking for a refund of your tuition.

        • Diamondback

          Just because a court in this country, even the Supreme Court of the U.S., makes a ruling in no way means that they’re ruling appropriately. Our courts are too corrupt and filled with too many scumbag activist traitors. Much like Congress and the Executive branch. Our so-called justice system is ALSO in need of significant reform and cleansing. Just read some of their decisions!!! It’s totally disgusting.

        • Diamondback

          Just because a court in this country, even the Supreme Court of the U.S., makes a ruling in no way means that they’re ruling appropriately. Our courts are too corrupt and filled with too many scumbag activist traitors. Much like Congress and the Executive branch. Our so-called justice system is ALSO in need of significant reform and cleansing. Just read some of their decisions!!! It’s totally disgusting.

        • watchmen1

          Hey, Humperdink… Can you explain how “Government SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION” equals the free exercise of religion being prevented (by government) or separated / removed from government in any form at any level???????

          I suggest you read original sources, brush up on your separation of powers and attempt to grasp original intent and the difference between state and State.

          In truth, government…(the FEDERAL government of the united states was to be bound to make no laws regarding religion.) NOTICE THE PERIOD!!! The SCOTUS was also prohibited from making judgments on matters of religion. No preference was to be rendered to any sect or denomination of any religion by any part of the Federal Government (STATE). However, it was specifically directed that matters of religion were to be handled at the state level of government. Not gonna argue this with ya, read the founders own writings not some sudo-educated, agenda pushing, Jack…wagons from Berkeley.

    • Anonymous

      Why does everyone slam David Barton, what did he do? What is wrong w/him?

  • Anonymous

    Funny…I’m sure he has no problem understanding The Communist Manifesto.

    • Since you didn’t provide me an email address, I can only respond to you here. You have NOT been blocked from commenting and I suspect you may just need to EMPTY your CACHE and restart your browser. I hope it works for you.

    • Since you didn’t provide me an email address, I can only respond to you here. You have NOT been blocked from commenting and I suspect you may just need to EMPTY your CACHE and restart your browser. I hope it works for you.

  • Anonymous

    They’re following it. Not their.

  • Gboyz

    That’s why you read documents like the federalist papers to grasp the idea! You freakin moron!

  • what a moron… the problem isn’t either of those two things – it’s that those who want to push a leftist agenda don’t give a crap what’s in the constitution anyway…

  • Goldni007

    Did he say just before that “it has not binding power over anything?” Are you kidding me sir?

  • …and his statement explains why liberals never do their own research. I asked specific questions directly to liberals about the Health Care bill and they would link me to articles with people “Explaining” what was in the bill. I would quote them direct text.

    Liberals rely on what they are told by other liberals. Conservatives KNOW some people lie. I think it goes back to the Reagan phrase: “Trust, but verify.”

  • Nada

    The person in this video has a problem with the Constitution because he simply does not like what it says. It’s known as “cognitive dissonance.” A psychological condition when a person does not comprehend that which is different from their previously held beliefs. There is not a single sentence in the Constitution that is unreadable if you believe it, or at least have a neutral mind.

  • HEY EZRA,.. So you slept in Early American History class in grade school did you?

    Or is it the REALLY BIG words that are confusing for you?

    Or MAYBE it’s that IQ of 38 that is causing you problems.

    Silly Progressive, Leftwingnut, Libratard, DumbOcrat.

    Just because YOU have Difficulty comprehending the U.S. Constitution, DOES NOT MEAN the REST of us DO.

  • Ezra Klein is a textbook case of a person who gets pushed and promoted by some “invisible” elite, even though there is no verifiable evidence of his skills or qualifications. I could name at least ten people who’d be more deserving of being invited on TV to expound on the issues of the day … Klein is a wannabe pundit. In my little finger I have more intellect and education than he could ever hope to obtain in ten lifetimes!

  • Josie

    Did he really say “it has no binding affect on anything”? And he’s the go to guy! No wonder the left are so lost they can’t understand conducting legislation through the Constitution.

    If this is a gimmick I want more, more, more please.

  • Goldni007

    Yep he said. I never..I mean NEVER watch MessNBC but I was flipping through and caught the entire segment. My wife who was walking by at the moment stopped and shouted at the TV. She is apolitical as you can get too! She could not believe what she was watching. The left is in a pitiful state right now..I mean awful.

  • Anonymous

    Loved his lisp.

    If it is a gimmick, it’s a good one. Read on, read on….make them memorize and recite it.

  • Anonymous

    Loved his lisp.

    If it is a gimmick, it’s a good one. Read on, read on….make them memorize and recite it.

  • Anonymous

    Loved his lisp.

    If it is a gimmick, it’s a good one. Read on, read on….make them memorize and recite it.

  • This guy needs some prayer! The constitution and the Declaration of Independence are two of the greatest written articles ever. People don’t talk like that anymore, that isn’t to say that people should forget about it because they don’t talk like anymore, it means maybe we should strive harder to believe in something like our Forefathers did. Liberals make me sick, the constitution is what makes us the greatest nation ever. They want to change it? When the Constitution was framed it was framed knowing that times would just and things in it would have to change, but that was on a minor scale the basic fundamentals and ideals were to never be changed.
    You know I am actually afraid to watch Glenn Beck now because the guy is so right on about so many things. You can’t go after the most powerful people in the world and expect not to get booted off the air unless you get it dead right like he does.

  • Publius

    Classical liberal logic. He uses liberal misrepresentations of the Constitution to prove supposedly there is something wrong with the document, when all it proves is there is something wrong with liberals. It’s like liberals decide to argue a stop sign says go, and that’s proof the sign is confusing.

    It’s not confusing.
    Fascism is not Constitutional.
    Fascism Lite (Socialism) is not Constitutional.

    Got it, Ezra Klown.

  • Anonymous

    I hope these idiots keep talking like this. Maybe more Americans, especially democrats, will realize that to be a democrat anymore is to be un-American and basically an enemy of America. They believe in nothing the Constitution stands for nor any of the principles this country was founded on.

  • Anonymous

    You just can’t fix stupid!!!

  • Anonymous

    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:

    Ezra Klein In The Cross-Hairs Of Right Wing Outrage

  • Steprock

    “So, Ezra. Those Repub-lic-ans want to actually READ the Constitution!! How weird is that?”

    Am I mistaken, or is our most revered document in the land more like 200 years old? Not 100. Golly, maybe they should put it on the internets or something? How is anyone supposed to get it???


  • Jmbreland

    As a U.S. Army soldier, my oath is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Mr. Klein is a domestic enemy of the Constitution. The threat that he and others of his ilk pose to the rest of us is far more virulent than anything Osama Bin Laden could ever hope to create. Klein represents the enemy within. We ridicule him now; tomorrow we discover what a system is like where no “binding” Constiutional restraints exist to hold back despotism and tyranny. Picture this: Nazi Germany equipped with today’s surveillance technology and modern weaponry….

  • Anonymous

    Reemeber felow liburills, just like Jahn Carry sed, if yoo kent rede the constitooshun, yuo’ll end up in Irack.