Time Magazine: Constitution Doesn't Limit Government, ObamaCare Constitutional
By Eric Ames | June 23, 2011 | 15:48
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."
One would have to go through the trouble of taking the Constitution seriously in order to demonstrate that, yes, the Constitution is supposed to limit government. Stengel writes "Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the "necessary and proper" clause." Stengel, who as former President and CEO of the National Constitution Center ought to know better, conveniently ignores that the enumeration of powers is itself a limitation on government. The need to list powers in the first place acknowledges that there are certain powers government does not have. Stengel demonstrates that he is well aware that the Framers were opposed to unlimited government, but his belief that limits on government were not a major concern is unfounded.
Stengel also gives scarce recognition to the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers all other powers the states and the people. If the Constitution were really designed to empower the federal government to do everything that liberals want to do, neither the enumerated powers nor the 10th Amendment would have been necessary, and the Framers need only have written the necessary and proper clause, and left it with that. NRO's John Pitney demolishes Stengel on this point rather concisely here.
Stengel at times also descends into sheer idiocy. "[The Framers] also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being." Nowhere does the Constitution say that black people are three-fifths of a person. The provision Stengel references was included to appease slave-holders, who actually wanted slaves counted the same as free whites so as to advantage their numbers in the House of Representatives. Contemporary opponents of slavery actually wanted this number to be zero rather than three-fifths.
Stengel even reaches to defend ObamaCare using the now strained car insurance defense, but he goes even further. "Supporters of ObamaCare note that it's not a mandate but, in effect, a tax, imposed on people who do not buy health insurance." Hilariously, this is an argument even liberal judges have thrown to the curb when the federal government defends ObamaCare under Congressional tax authority.
If there were any doubt that today's political and media class do not know enough about the Constitution, let that doubt now be absolved. Before the mainstream media next report on the American people's ignorance of American civics and history, they should do a bit of soul searching of their own.
# # #
- Eric Ames's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
#1 Hey you idiots
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 3:57pm.
read the founder's documents. Any elementary student could find that inforamtion. They never wanted a large centralized government.
#2 Time circulation
Submitted by Patriot_765 on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 4:17pm.
RATE BASE 2006 2007 2008
Newsweek 3,100,000 3,100,000 2,600,000
Time 4,000,000 3,250,000 3,250,000
Economist 532,000 595,000 714,000
no newer stats....
help any one?
I don't think that many, if any one still reads Time magazine
So who really cares what silly trip Time writes?
#3 That's just it - the people
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 5:05am.
That's just it - the people who do read it go on to spread it to the people who run things. That's why it matters.
Ronald Reagan
#4 The Constitution and limits on the Federal government
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 4:26pm.
STENGEL: ""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."
While it is a fact that the drafting and passing of the Constitution was necessary because the central government established by the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak, the Constitution most certainly limits central government in at least two ways:
1. Checks and balances
2. The Bill of Rights
#5 Even more to the point
Submitted by Reaver on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 8:17pm.
Even more to the point Galvonic, this former president of the national constitution center doesn’t think there was a central government before the constitution was signed. I guess he’s never heard of the articles of confederation.
#6 Plus, there WERE plans
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 4:43pm.
Plus, there WERE plans submitted at the Constitutional Convention that called for an extremely powerful federal government and for weakening the states. That was what Hamilton proposed, but it was soundly rejected. The Framers wanted a national government that could defend the nation and secure its liberty and independence in the long-term. They didn't want the feds to run everything under the sun.
Hamilton went on to be a vigorous defender of the federal Constitution and most certainly he wanted to push the bounds of federal power to some extent to beef up the US's credit standing with the rest of the world and gain international respect for her standing as a nation, for her economy, etc.
But I think even Hamilton would be shocked by ObamaCare and other federal intrusions into Americans' lives today.
#7 Here it is...
Submitted by ArcherB on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 5:01pm.
Amendment X: 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.
That is actually in the Constitution.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
#8 Okay, folks, no need for the
Submitted by texasborngranny on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 5:07pm.
Judiciary... TIME has RULED.
From this day forward, TIME will rule on any and all constitutional questions.
Tada!
#9 The Constitution doesn't
Submitted by jessieH on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 5:33pm.
The Constitution doesn't limit government, the CITIZENS do! Not one American is calling to change it. It's the few, pushing their propaganda that are trying to destroy this Nation.
#10 richard gets an F
Submitted by right of way on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 5:38pm.
this reminds me of something stupid obama said, that the constitution tells us what we can't do, not what we can do. well there is a reason for that. if you were to propose that the federal government had power over the states, none of the colonies would have signed on, and we would be the un-united states of america. the framers didn't want the federal government to get too powerful, and the states still wanted their power.
so yes, the constitution does limit government. what an idiot.
#11 Stengel vs. Obama..
Submitted by greggy on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 5:51pm.
STENGEL (in defense of Obamacare): ""If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so..."
OBAMA: "The fundamental flaw of the US Constitution is that it's a charter of negative liberties - it says what the government cannot do to you, but it doesn't say what the government must do for you.
"
So in defending Obamacare, Stengel flatly contradicts - Obama himself.
Brilliance, sheer brilliance.
TIME leans to the left so hard that if it were a ship, it would roll over and capsize. Which is a pretty good analogy..
#12 where do they make this stuff up??
Submitted by wizardjr on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 6:20pm.
I know that many (most?) public university PoliSci departments preach this tripe today, but where did the foundation for this lie gel into "truth"? Even in grade school we read some of the founders' stuff and it was about limiting the central government in favor of the states.
Of course the lazy assed sheeple would never bother the read either the Constitution itself or any of the founders' documents. Too much trouble ya know. Got important stuff to see like Oprah and Jerry Springer or MTV.
#13 Dead white males
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 9:18pm.
In general, university and even public school agenda today have taught students that the ideas, endeavors, accomplishments, and institutions of dead white males are flawed or evil. They start with slavery and the treatment of Indians, and then venture into the unequal treatment of women and damage to the ecology.
Once they have demonized the Founding Fathers, it's a snap to deconstruct the Constitution and reassemble it (as Fareed Zakaria suggests) to fit the agenda of the Left.
#14 Levin just ripped this dork lib a new one!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 6:51pm.
And WIDE, too! He would have made better sense if his first name was CASEY!
#15 Fortunately,
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 9:54pm.
these days more Americans are reading the Constitution, and fewer are reading TIME.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
#16 Cut out the middle recepticle....
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:29am.
"readers of Time magazine this week found in their mailbox yet another pile of leftist tripe..."
Why don't they deliver this stack of wasted paper straight to the trash can?
#17 You know, only someone who actually thought an UNLIMITED GOV'T..
Submitted by Phryj1 on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:30am.
..a.k.a. authoritarian gov't was a good idea would actually argue the constitution doesn't limit gov't.
From the same folks who think the answer to EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM EVER is MORE GOVERNMENT.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
#18 Individual Mandate = tax?
Submitted by Phryj1 on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:40am.
If that's the case, then we effectively have a tax on being healthy itself. SO much for the whole "being healthy is a civil right" argument. You can't very well say something is a right when you've put a tax on it.
Then again, this IS the Democrats we're talking about. If they could tax rights, they would. Dems love them some taxes! My only question is, do Dems love taxes because they love spending, or do they love spending because they love taxes?
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
#19 Any wonder why Time is almost
Submitted by Cowboy on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 2:40am.
Any wonder why Time is almost down to a 4-page tabloid format
#20 Its Always Amazing
Submitted by packman on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 8:21am.
how the liberal mentality will trash the Constitution when they want to be "progressive," then turn around and defend it when it suits their purposes. And of course when I want a genuine interpretation of the Constitution, I always turn to Time magazine instead of the Supreme Court. Yeah, right. Idiots.
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
#21 Well, actualy considering some of the SC
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 8:32am.
Decisions, I would not be quick to turn to them either
#22 Media treason and incompetency
Submitted by Tyler520 on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 3:28pm.
Apparently, Mr. Stengel is either an illiterate or a lazy liar who has never read the Constitution of the United States. Had he read AND understood the Constitution, he would realize that his statement that, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so..." is entirely and verifiably false, as stipulated by the Enumerated Powers set forth by Article I, section 8, which set forth the authoritative capacity of the United States Congress: Congress may exercise the powers to which it is GRANTED BY the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that all prerogatives NOT VESTED in the federal government NOR PROHIBITED of the STATES are reserved TO the states and TO the people, which means that the only prerogatives of the Congress (as well as the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch) are limited to those explicitly stated in the Constitution.
So simple, a caveman could understand it...but apparently not Leftists.
Whether Stengel is a liar, or simply an idiot doesn't matter - he is still nothing less than a treasonous pig, as are all Leftists in America who continue to support the Obama administration.