Ezra Klein, Constitution has no binding power, Text confusing, 112th Congress reads US Constitution

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post was interviewed on MSNBC. He was asked to respond to the 112th Congress reading the US Constitution on January 6, 2011. His response, though stupefying, was consistent with the attitudes of the left and what would be expected from an associate of the Washington Post.

In the interview he states:

“it has no binding power on anything.”

“The text is confusing”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPNe6-f4b-Y]

Ezra Klein, which of these provisions of the US Constitution do you consider confusing and non binding?

“Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“Amendment XV

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–”

“Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Ezra Klein, after being bombarded with responses to his idiotic statements, posted a “clarification” of his remarks. The problem I mostly have with Mr. Klein is his cavalier attitude in regard to the US Constitution. He must have a great many followers on the left.

“This morning, I gave a quick interview to MSNBC where I made, I thought, some fairly banal points on the GOP’s plan to honor the Constitution by having it read aloud on the House floor. Asked if it was a gimmick, I replied that it was, because, well, it is. It’s our founding document, not a spell that makes the traitors among us glow green. It’s also, I noted, a completely nonbinding act: It doesn’t impose a particular interpretation of the Constitution on legislators, and will have no practical impact on how they legislate.”

“But my inbox suggests that my comments weren’t taken that way: The initial interpretation was that I’d said the Constitution is too complicated to understand because it was written a long time ago, and then, as the day went on, that I’d said the document itself is nonbinding. I went back and watched the clip — or at least the part someone clipped and sent me, which is above — and thought I was clear enough. But when a lot of people misunderstand you at once, the fault is usually yours. So if I was unclear: Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/yes_the_constitution_is_bindin.html

Yes, Ezra Klein, the fault is yours. And once again, which provision is ok for you or the Supreme Court to declare not binding?

Ezra Klein, welcome the the US Constitution Hall of Shame.