Klein expresses the view that the Constitution is "confusing" and really can't be understood because it was written more than 100 years ago. Therefore, he suggests, it means whatever a particular reader wants it to mean
Let's put aside, for a moment, the know-nothing stupidity of claiming that anything written more than a century ago is so impenetrable as to be irrelevant. (Aristotle? The Bible? Chaucer? Shakespeare? Virtually every great thinker and novelist of world history?) Klein said out loud, I think, what a great many progressives believe, and his comments fit well with the progressive dilemma outlined by Paul in the post immediately below. Progressive hostility to the Constitution is perhaps the great under-reported story of American politics.
Besides, he wasn't even born until I gradulated from College. How do you expect him to understand musty old Constitution-y things?
As Crash Davis said in Bull Durham*, I'm not interested in a woman who's interested in that boy.
* Young Ezra was 4 when that film was released.
If, say, I'm younger than him, is it ok for me to kick him for you?
Using that theory, there are loads of things that are too confusing because they were created more than 100 years ago:
- Emancipation proclamation
- 14th Amendment
- Gettysburg Address
- the game of football
Whatever college he went to robbed him, and he should demand his money back.
And Susan Sarandon, in that era, just works for me. I don't care what her politics are.
The fact that HE can't understand it just tells me that he is the problem, not the document.
I guess they must have used words that were too big for him to understand, which is why we don't let minors sign contracts.
Guess that means we have to dump Newtonian physics. Calculus. Electromagnetics.
Good grief, I may as well stay home. Not sure how I could get any work done without that!
Post a Comment