There’s been a lot of Internet commentary on Time magazine editor Richard Stengel’s profoundly ignorant essay on the Constitution.
Here’s one dissection of it, and here’s another at Patterico.
Given idiocy like this, it’s not surprising that Queen Nancy’s only response to the question about ObamaCare constitutionality was “Are you kidding?! Are you kidding?!” These totalitarians don’t give a damn about the Constitution.
The thing that is frightening is that so many ‘so called’ Americans tolerate it. Ironically, some immigrants get it and are our best Americans.
We are conditioned to tolerate the intolerable. Sort of like Microsoft intentionally breaking the ADO interface recently with SP1 on Window 7 so programs compiled with it wont work on earlier versions of windows… forcing people to upgrade and causing pain to developers.
Sorry, clicked the initial article from Time, and it took 9 paragraphs for him to actually attempt to make a rebuttal point. The first 8 paragraphs could have been written by the Matula troll and his hatred of all things TEA. And since it would require me to click through 5 pages of the Times’ horseshit; I decided there were better things to do. Besides, when the 1 paragraph on the first page argues this point [paraphrased]: “The Necessary and Proper Cause suggests that the Founding Fathers were not for limited government”… I can only imagine the fisking that would occur over 4 more pages of such nonsense.
It amazes me that our leaders knew enough about human institutions and history a quarter of a millennium ago to design a government of enumerated, limited powers, while today’s leaders (and the general population) don’t get it at all. We’re walking straight down the path to tyranny, and if we don’t make some serious changes, we’ll get to our destination.
Just from a very basic philosphical standpoint, our system of government is based on checks and balances because the Founders knew that all leaders are vain and power hungry, and that pitting them against each other in a battle of attrition so they can’t do anything is just as important as replacing them via elections.
Given this, there’s no way the Founders wouldn’t have tried to limit the powers of government. They wanted to design a government that works even though it would be inevitably run by powermad a**holes from hell.
Aside from the “It’s bleeding obvious!” argument, there are also reams and reams of writings by the Founders that explain not only that the government was to be one of limited, enumerated powers but explaining why they thought that was necessary. It’s so obvious and so blatant that anyone hinting or outright claiming otherwise is either a complete ignoramus or a liar.