But wait – don’t we live under a “living”, “evolving” Constitution? No doubt the editors of the NYT have endorsed that proposition countless times in the past.
After all:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. Yet encroachments upon the free exercise of religion are too numerous to mention, all eagerly endorsed by the NYT.
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”. Yet campaign finance reform does exactly that, and was eagerly endorsed by the NYT.
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Yet the NYT is in the forefront of advocating every sort of infringement possible.
“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Yet the NYT, without doubt, enthusiastically endorsed the Kelo decision.
So why should freedom of the press be the only portion of the Bill of Rights that the NYT demands remain sacrosanct? We all know the answer to that, of course.
what kind of fuggen middle name is ochs? how do you pronounce it.
of course If I had a middle name like that, I wouldnt mind being called PUNCH or Pinchy
Great post! My favorite Times hypocrisy, though, is how it caterwauls about President Bush being a crypto-fascist and exercising unilateral power to, for example, obtain phone records without a warrant, while arrogating to itself the power to decide "the public interest" and publish state secrets leaked by anonymous sources, whenever it feels like it. If we don't hang that "public interest" comment around Bill Keller's neck and choke him with it, shame on us. Nobody elected him to anything, and the First Amendment does NOT give him the unlimited and unchecked power to decide what is in "the public interest."