This Week with Christiane Amanpour

[Maggie]

Channel surfing a bit this morning I decided to check what Ms. Amanpour had in mind for her show on this July 3rd. Good topic: The Constitution. Same format: George Will against the world. Enjoy (they divided up the segments):

Roundtable: Constitution Politics

My opinion:

Richard Stengel's cover story for Time, asks does the Constitution matter? Stengel is an editor of the country’s largest news magazine and, hold your breath, the former president and chief executive officer of the National Constitution Center. Yet his cover story is deeply flawed. Stengel kept me on the edge of my seat. He would start to sound so reasonable; I would begin to question if that Time article was really an accurate portrayal of his thinking. Then he would talk a little longer, and I would say to myself, "Yup. That's why I think he's an idiot."

Dyson could not speak with any less authority or substance. That he's a professor at a prominent university could not reveal more clearly how broken higher education is: Nothing but platitudes.

The professor from Harvard is such a doctrinaire feminist that when asked who was her favorite Founding Father, she named Benjamin Franklin's sister, a person I don't remember either signing the Deceleration of Independence or participating as one of the 55-delegates in the first Constitutional Convention. If she can be a Founding Father, then why can't John Quincy Adams, who as a young man served as his father's aid during his tenure as Ambassador to England.

George Will, is well -- George Will.

[ABC]

How did George Will react/respond?

[Maggie]

I did not summarize Will – because he was the only panelist that actually made real arguments. George Will, in my judgment (but judge for yourself), intellectually dominated the discussion. A few points made by Will:

(1) American politics is always retrospective in relation to our founding documents, etc. However, he essentially is asking is the expansion of government, “in recent years” compatible with Madison? And the gracious host asked Will – “Do you mean Obama?”; he answered, bluntly, “Yes”. She found that amusing – so did I albeit for different reasons I am sure;

(2) Will continues to explain how Obama has decided that the government has the power to do certain things with are unprecedented in the history of our Republic. He cites Healthcare as a prime example;

(3) Now the discussion turns, predictably, to the fact that the Constitution was intended to establish a stronger executive. Which is true, relative to the Articles of Confederation, and Will’s fellow panelists seem to want to end the discussion there – Will points out that while it is accurate to assert that the Founders knew it was essential to create a stronger central power they also recognized that it was also treacherous. So….they limited that central power – its powers are “few and defined”;

(4) Question: Absolutist document vs. interpretation. Will rightly acknowledges that the document is open to interpretation but the notion it is a “living document” (as defined by the Left, and all of my law school professors) is asinine. He is going directly after Dyson (I felt sorry for Dyson). Will continues on to make the point that majorities are dangerous. Dyson tries to argue, without saying so, that the document is antiquated (within the prism of race, which is all he apparently thinks about – frankly, he needs to find a different tune);

(5) Will bluntly says the Constitution has been “under siege” for a century – by the progressive movement;

(6) Next Will quote, again addressing Dyson: “The Framers were not narrow and blinkered men, they were men of the Enlightenment” And to my delight, he made the distinction between “amending the Constitution” by the casual reinterpretation of it and utilization of the amendment process provided in the document;

(7) After the break the next question is about healthcare, and Will addresses the Commerce Clause. And then asks his fellow panelists, does the federal government have the power to compel obese people (because health risks tangentially affect interstate commerce) to sign up for Weight Watchers? Stengel attempts to argue that the federal government “asks” people to do many things – Will corrects him, the feds are not “asking” they are mandating. Stengel ignores this and among other things mentions that we are all required to get drivers licenses. Sigh. Will points out the obvious – you don’t have to buy a car. Stengel won’t answer Will’s question – he says he doesn’t know. Dyson on the other hand, after much hemming and hawing actually says – if Congress decides they have the power, they will have the power to do so. The Harvard professor ignores the question. (so much for respect for the Constitution);

(8 ) The next question is premised on the fact that the Framers could not have envisioned things like assault weapons, video games, etc., and, therefore, how can the founding documents and the reasoning behind them be relevant today? A typical argument from the Left, circa 1910 – what is old is new. Will makes the point that the Second Amendment has been found to include an individual right to arms, not the collective. And does go on to say that the values in the founding documents are instructive and not antiquated and not irrelevant…..

I don’t have time to write anymore, but now you know why I preferred that people watch, if so inclined.

[Maggie]

This is it, this is the fight - perhaps I have lost my connection to middle America, but I don't think so. Madison vs. Wilson - who or what idea prevails in the United States?

I sat on July 4th, with all the pageantry and fireworks over the Hudson and thought: It is no claim to Manifest Destiny, nor act of xenophobic patriotism to say that America is the boldest, most liberal (in its original sense), most successful, and most prosperous experiment in human experience. To state thus is to state history. It behooves us, then, to recall Lord Acton’s axiom that “liberty is the delicate fruit of a mature civilization.”

All who love freedom have their part to play in the cultivation of that fruit and to bring liberty to its right end: the truth about human dignity and human destiny. It is a worthy call.

Some publicly claim to answer that call - I have not, and in some ways feel the lessor for my inaction.

[wu_shizzle]

There's a reason no one watches these shows, and it's not because they're watching Jersey Shore or other mindless television.

These kind of secular progressive Liberals are boring and tired caricatures. I mean it took Dyson all of what, 10 seconds to talk about Slavery?

[wufan]

All who love freedom have their part to play in the cultivation of that fruit and to bring liberty to its right end: the truth about human dignity and human destiny. It is a worthy call.

Some publicly claim to answer that call - I have not, and in some ways feel the lessor for my inaction.

I think Jefferson said that one should serve the public, not for one's own egotistic goals or the wealth it brings, but because it is "an obligation" to one's own liberty. I too have felt that calling from time-to-time, but I feel a stronger calling to my family and I am quite astute to the fact that the job itself may be beyond my ability to execute it adequately.

It is much easier to point out the problems with the pitcher from left field than it is to catch a fly ball.

[Maggie]

[quote="wufan"]

It is much easier to point out the problems with the pitcher from left field than it is to catch a fly ball.

I have always found both easy. ;-)

[DUShock]

Thanks for sharing, I thoroughly enjoyed the clip. Civil discourse there's a novel concept...

[shox1989]

I did not summarize Will – because he was the only panelist that actually made real arguments. George Will, in my judgment (but judge for yourself), intellectually dominated the discussion. A few points made by Will:


(7) After the break the next question is about healthcare, and Will addresses the Commerce Clause. And then asks his fellow panelists, does the federal government have the power to compel obese people (because health risks tangentially affect interstate commerce) to sign up for Weight Watchers? Stengel attempts to argue that the federal government “asks” people to do many things – Will corrects him, the feds are not “asking” they are mandating. Stengel ignores this and among other things mentions that we are all required to get drivers licenses. Sigh. Will points out the obvious – you don’t have to buy a car. Stengel won’t answer Will’s question – he says he doesn’t know. Dyson on the other hand, after much hemming and hawing actually says – if Congress decides they have the power, they will have the power to do so. The Harvard professor ignores the question. (so much for respect for the Constitution);


I don’t have time to write anymore, but now you know why I preferred that people watch, if so inclined.

I have never understood how the City of Wichita has the authority to force me to buy private trash pickup services from a private company.

It certainly can't be the commerce clause because the city of wichita doesn't operate across state lines.

Most other cities I have lived in have provided trash services through a city contract. Wichita requires all citizens to buy their own trash service from a private company. Some of us may not create enough trash to really justify spending $20 a month to have someone come pick up my little bag of trash each week. But city law requires me to do it.

I still don't understand how they get by with it.

[WuDrWu]

I continue to force myself to watch the Sunday morning programs. Not because I enjoy it, but because I think it's important to learn and to be able to discuss amongst those that don't watch.


Sometimes it's really disgusting to watch the liberal spin. CA spent about 2 minutes discussing Texas Gov. Rick Perry and his possible insertion in the Presidential race. She questioned the intelligence of Gov. Perry leading a group in prayer, and they showed a group of people, ostensibly reacting to his words, crying in praise. Whether those people were even listening to Gov. Perry is debatable, but nevertheless, the attempt to paint the Gov. as some kind of "religious crazy person" was 100% intentional, and totally disgusting. When Utah Rep. simply stated that faith was a good thing, his comment was summarily dismissed. The intent was so transparent it made me ill.

There is more, but it's just so annoying, I can't go on right now. Well I guess I can....but it is annoying.

[WuDrWu]

The Standard and Poors downgrade was also discussed. Of course, the new Democratic talking point is JOBS. The real problem in this country is the lack of work the tea party hijacked, Republican led Congress has managed to not create over the last 232 days (or whatever the time frame is).

The Democratic party's desire to deflect their own failings, at any cost or lack of truth, smacks of total desperation and it's doing nothing to fix the problem.

My question would be why did they spend 15 minutes on the downgrade (and the Dems are calling the decision laughable and in error) yet the last 25 minutes were on Syria and Gloria Steinem?

I will say this.....The comment from the Dems about how could we be in worse shape now than during the financial crisis seems on the surface to have some validity. Making these decisions are WAY above my pay grade, but I think they aren't done on a whim, and that whole thing went down pretty quickly and we certainly didn't have the debt issue we have today.

Then of course, there was the parting shot at Fox News on the Sunday lack of funnies.

[Maggie]

I was thinking about this roundtable (KungWu will have to wait, not being arrogant just he will have to stay put before tearing apart whatever I write).

I was asked to listen to the roundtable again – and I have. Here we go. The topic was “the Constitution” I put scare quotes around it because it seemed like all the panelist, save G. Will, talked that way about, you know the quote-unquote Constitution. I watched the Sunday shows this week – Cokie Roberts at least stated “the constitution is the problem”. Well, she meant that in terms of our system relative to a parliamentary system (or a tyranny, just say’in).

What of these people? G. Will asked a question. “Does Congress have the constitutional power to require obese people to sign up for Weight Watchers. If not, why not?”

Stengel had no answer. Dyson who is the logogphillic go-to-guy for brookers who want angry yet polysyllabic “explainations” for why everything is racial – did answer: “If they decide that they will, they will have the power to do so”. Lepore, a liberal “historian” dodged the question entirely. You see the fact we are having this debate means the Constitution is working. It made me want to reach through my T.V. screen and pat her on the head, for even trying.

Elena Kagan, now Justice of the Supreme Court, was asked a similar question. She was asked, as I recall, does Congress have the power to make American’s eat broccoli? Kagan was equally flustered, she sounded like a boy busted for having girlie mags under his bed. I thought, at the time, Kagan was afraid to answer due to the byzantine rule of politics surrounding her nomination.

I think I was wrong. Progressives seem, even in the most favorable forums, to be embarrassed by their own core convictions. Stengel is not up for anything, the others have tenure (god help the kids) and yet they are so openly afraid to say what they believe – to wit: Anything is constitutional if the government says it is.

G.Wills's question is hard if your answer is anything but NO. Because if that is the case normal would think you’re crazy.

I think that is a good sign.

Cokie needs to be put out to pasture – but at least she was honest.