Posted on 06/24/2011 3:38:29 AM PDT by lowbridge
Regular readers of Time magazine this week found in their mailbox yet another pile of leftist tripe in the vein of "the Constitution is a living document." This week's cover article by managing editor Richard Stengel is a freak show of anti-Constitutional babble including an assertion that the Constitution was not intended to limit government: "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so...The truth is, the Constitution massively strengthened the central government of the U.S. for the simple reason that it established one where none had existed before."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Hahaha...OMG.
How right you are. And how disturbing that is, to even consider that.
I am conflicted on how to consider Luce...I know at one point, he was a Patriot, but when I look at the bent of his kingdom, especially in the late Sixties into the Seventies, I can only imagine he was taking a hands-off approach to the content of his publications.
“how can you oppose the government? the government is us!”
And the wiseacre response almost writes itself.
The Church was an impediment to the gay and leftist agenda so they destroyed the church. The consitution is an impediment to their wish for complete government control so now they must destroy the constitution.
btt
somewhere in the USA, there is a judge looking at this going duuuuuuhhhhh ok.
Where was Stengel when the leftist hordes descended on Washington week after week during the height of the Iraq War protesting that Bush was violating the then beloved constitution? Then the document mattered. Now that they have their favorite leftist in power, who needs a stinkin’ constitution? Just let Obama do whatever he wants, and the leftist federal judges will fill in the rest.
Richard Stengel writes: “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.”
Yes, it does. The Tenth Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, James Madison explained the original understanding of the document in Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
So, Richard, are you ignorant, stupid, or a liar? Or perhaps more than one. Whatever. Time editors should have known better. Probably they did, but hey, ever time Time stoops to a new low that doesn’t seem possible, they do it again next week and stoop even lower than the winner of the Jamaican national limbo contest.
But no matter, with circulation sinking faster than the Titanic, in a couple of years no one’s going to care what the digital remnants of Time are honking about anyway. After all, at that point the Time website will be just one of honking billions.
Time mag is just as ignorant of history as they are on the Constitution.
They may be hoping to be the official barak media outlet, but dictators purge those that got them there.
Stalin purged the media and all the top level generals in the soviet military. Their thinking is that the ones who helped him to overthrow the system could overthow them as well.
It is sick and sad to watch Americans in the media business openly work toward their own destruction.
Even odder is the fact that before becoming editor at Time, Rick Stengel was head of the National Constitution Center and Museum on Independence Mall in Philadelphia.
The Stengels (spell?) of the world are running your country.
Thanks for not caring. :)
Glenn Beck posits the question: “Can Man Rule Himself?”
If the left think that Man cannot rule himself, then how can they endorse Men ruling over other men?
This seems to be a paradox on the left.
If Man is not qualified to rule himself then isn’t man also equally unqualified to rule over others, be those men Kings, Dictators, or even Saints?
All the apparatus of government consists of men, but if the left is correct in their assertion that man cannot rule himself then should their goal be to minimize the sins of men ruling over other men?
The LSM just keeps handing us ammo!”
To do what,complain some more? Each time, they go further, we sit around, raising our voices, but doing nothing. As the saying goes “talk is cheap”. I don’t know the answer, sue them, burn them down, or try to think what our founding fathers would do. Pick one advertiser, and boycott them? As conservatives, we draw our line in the sand, and are betrayed by our leaders, and required to draw another line again and again. Folks, we now have our line in front of us, the cliff at our back. Maybe this doesn’t make sense to any of you, writing this is hard because of rage boiling over of one thing after another, every day, and feeling powerless to do anything about it. With 22 years in the Marines, we knew our enemy and set out to destroy them, Now with my 75 years on this planet, I feel powerless. My oath to defend the Constitution still guides me. Semper Fidelis
I didn’t realize Time magazine was still around.
That is a short-quote from Federalist #84. The full context is:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
Hamilton was arguing against the necessity of adding the Bill of Rights. He did so BECAUSE he foresaw what usurpers would do if given the hooks to turn the BoR amendments on their ears.
The presstitutes won’t survive the third volley Laz....
Come on January 2013. ....
And you once again ducked my question on the Commerce Clause. Care to reconcile your two contradictory positions?
There was a time when these people wouldn’t be heard from again.
LOL I see what you did there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.