Well, the only demographic out there that's more numbingly idiotic than a liberal journalist is a liberal journalism student; Klein's laughable ignorance about the Constitution simply is par for the course.

RE: "What in hell are the minimum qualfications to be a staff writer at the Washington Post?"

A minimum of two lobotomies.

"What in hell are the minimum qualifications to be a staff writer at the Washington Post?"

I'd have to say the minimum qualifications would be:

1. An oxygen thief.
2. Room temperature IQ.
3. A cognitive dissonance with reality.

The tripe that's been coming out from them of late is not a positive sign for stock holders.

"What in hell are the minimum qualfications to be a staff writer at the Washington Post?

Somewhat higher than the qualifications for becoming President of the US in 2008.

Seriously, how are Klines obviously imbecilic and anti-American opinions expressed in that video any different from Obama, Peloci, Reid or most other elected Democrats & Socialists?

What in hell are the minimum qualfications to be a staff writer at the Washington Post?

Democrat, Progressive, etc.

Klein explicates here. And he has a point.

Klein is backpedaling as fast as he can.

He has a very minor point. However, dwarfing that point is his incredible ignorance and condescension.

The Constitution was written some 200+ years ago (not just 100 as he stated). The language is perfectly understandable for anyone with a 12th grade education and for most without. Ezra seems to be under the misconceptions that it is written in Old English or in some Shakespearean vernacular that renders the meaning lost on all but the most esoteric of PhD Philosophers.

On the whole he comes off as an immature and ignorant fool. This is the man whom the JournoList left follows and considers a genius. He's a fool and now by his own confession only barely literate (both historically as well as in the common meaning). We owe him a thanks for showing us exactly how intelligent the left is and how well thought out their policies are.

Jim:

I do think Klein needs a bit more polish. He shot to the top echelons of the media universe much more quickly than is good for him.

But I'm going to disagree with you about how clear the Constitution is. While the language itself is fairly straightforward, parts of the Constitution are subject to degrees of interpretation. What constitutes "the general welfare?" How expansive is the power to pass laws "necessary and proper" to the execution of Congress's enumerated powers? What makes a search "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment? What makes a punishment "cruel and unusual?"

I've been working my way slowly through Arthur Schlesinger's The Imperial Presidency. In the books rather instructional early chapters, Schlesinger lays out how within just a few decades, American leaders -- including some who had negotiated the Constitution in the first place were arguing about its meaning.

It has long been a puzzle to me how a document (the Constitution) can be written in black and white, yet read in so many shades of gray.

James H: " ...parts of the Constitution are subject to degrees of interpretation."

According to the left, the meaning of the Constitution can only be found in the ever-mulitplying "emanations" and "Penumbras" which only become visible under the gaze of committed lefties.

These are the guys that are not even clear on the meaning of "is".

James H,

There is a sharp difference between saying that there are parts of the Constitution in which the meaning or intent can be debated and saying that the Constitution is so old and is written in a language as to be beyond understanding.

The latter is what Klein claimed. For my part I think it reveals exactly what he and the left think of the Constitution. They don't like it and are very desirous of dismissing it and replacing it with a Constitution that they approve of. But don't worry once they pass their new Constitution we will be able to read it and find out what's in it.

As for Klein needing more polish, there is a saying that covers that: "You can't polish a turd."

Jim M:

For my part I think it reveals exactly what he and the left think of the Constitution. They don't like it and are very desirous of dismissing it and replacing it with a Constitution that they approve of. But don't worry once they pass their new Constitution we will be able to read it and find out what's in it.

I lean left. Do you attribute this to me?

You don't strike me as nearly far left as many. I see people like obama stating that the Constitution s "Seriously flawed" and as noted above that it is a Constitution of negative rights telling the government what it cannot do to the citizens. Obama in that interview said that he wanted a constitution that defined what the government could do essentially against the will of the people.

Many on the left talk of a "Living constitution" that changes its meaning depending upon their mood. Certainly the constitution has been extended to ensure that its protections are applied to women and minorities and the courts have ruled in the past in ways that would today be unthinkable. But I think that most would say that they are comfortable with the understanding of the constitution to evolve in who it protects I do not think that there is a lot of desire for it to be changed dramatically in how it is applied, which is what the left wants.

If you believe that the Constitution is a living document whose meaning should be interpreted in light of the transient whims of our culture or that it should be subject to interpretation in light of foreign laws, then yes I put you in that group. I am not such a fool as to think that the left is a monolithic structure. I understand that political beliefs lie on a gradient.

Frankly, the idea that Klein just needs more polish is absurd. He's been writing professionally for years, landing at American Prospect in 2007 and WaPo over 18 months ago.

There weren't any professional writers available, so they went with the kid?

No, he was hired because he is a leftist hack who developed the skill of obfuscating the leftist agenda with figures and truthy-sounding factoids. If leftists say plainly what they intend to do, they would only win in Berkeley and Cambridge.

Klein's already well polished, thanks. It's just that the stuff he's made of only shines at the proper angle. He slipped and let us get a whiff of the real Ezra.

My dog is more intelligent that Klein.

Since we have recently had congressional representatives who think that the Congress can do anything it wants to do, and who cannot reference a specific substantive section of the Constitution which authorizes the Healthcare Deform Act, reading the Constitution in the House is more than a "gimmick."

But, I'm sure that Klein is honestly confused by anything written more than 100 years ago. Same goes for anything written less than 100 years ago.

On the brighter side, at least Klein is providing employment for the staff that dresses him in the morning.

Nonsense - What happens when one moron talks to another moron.

Jim M:

My approach to constitutional interpretation is eclectic; I tend away from a full-on "living Constitution" stance. If anything, I strive to harmonize my somewhat pragmatic political and policy leanings with my textualist constitutional leanings. That said, I prefer not to approach modern legal questions with the mentality of an 18th century American politician. Incidentally, the Posner excerpt on this Web page is very instructive.

But always, I try to remember that my interpretation of the Constitution is but one possible interpretation, and others may have a validity equal to my own. My education instilled in me a certain arrogance regarding the law, but it also instilled in me a certain humility. There is much that I do not know or understand.

Moreover, I am also conscious that every argument we have today over the Constitution echoes arguments that go back to this country's founding; indeed, as I mention above, these arguments started among the very men who wrote our Constitution!

James H,

That's nice. However the post was about Klein, who remains an ignorant tool and a perfect representative of the leftist media and dem party.

What if Palin had said what Klein had said?

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=20219