Some might be repulsed if he were to find the mailman just left a huge pile of shit in your mailbox. But I like to think the mailman is ignorant for the better in such cases.
Time magazine began showing up in my mailbox, uninvited and unpaid for about a month ago. Today, I found a nice lump of shit, in my mailbox, with the word “Time” at the top followed by an image of the Constitution, shreded, with the headline “Does It Still Matter?” on the cover.
Imagine my horror when I find the article du jour is a poorly researched, wretchedly long diatribe lacking both substance or merit. Rather than take the honest approach, it is generally a personal interpretation of what the document, and selective historical events, mean to the author. Rather than approach the topic from a journalistic perspective, it meanders through many of the greatest factually-challenged arguments about the Constitution up to and including how it is/should be interpreted.
Here’s a snippet:
Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I’m not even going to mention the Electoral College.
Read more: Time
We’ll skip over the assertion that the Constitution gave us the idea that a black person was 3/5ths of a human being – it doesn’t (the 3/5ths part comes from how votes are apportioned – Non slave holders didn’t want slave holders having more power simply because they owned slaves), or that women were not allowed to vote (oddly, wouldn’t that make them 0/5ths of a person? – but he can’t just say that can he!).
The completely inane part that just blows my mind is the part about South Dakota having the same number of Senators as California.
Here’s the relevant portion of the Constitution itself:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
I don’t understand why Stengal can’t understand why this is NOT crazy. But you should have at least a rudimentary understanding of why the Senate was created in the manner it was: It gave each STATE equal representation in the Federal government. How do we know this? Senators were originally nominated by STATE legislatures – not the people.
RTFC
The House represents the people, the Senate represented the states. It is also a key piece of the checks and balances that Stengal goes on to mention several times throughout the article. By placing strict limits on the number of senators, it creates a body where states are evenly represented. How can you believe it insanity that the Senate have equal representation, when it is the House that is to represent the people en-masse.
The insane part is where the Senate elections were given to the people and not the states – effectively trimming a part of the checks and balances that were put in place to check the power of an unrestrained majority.
How can the former CEO of the National Constitution Center not know this or spout that it is somehow “crazy” that the Senate is a check against mob rule?!
But the hits keep on coming throughout the piece. I can barely even stomach it when Stengal says things like:
If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power.
RTFC – the entire document is a limit on the extent of the Federal Government. They’re called enumerated powers for a precise reason: It is the extent of the Federal government’s power. The 10th Amendment is the final nail in the coffin of Stengal’s ignorant argument. All those powers the Federal government claims that don’t exist in the Constitution: they’re ours (the states and the people).