Does NO one on the left get it? The New York Times editorialized this week: "There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it." Dahlia Lithwick’s recent piece in Slate had me cringing.

Of course, President Lincoln got it, albeit 173 years before Ezra Klein's befuddlement.

Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

And of course James Madison knew a thing or two (or three) about our Constitution. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined,” wrote Madison in Federalist 45. “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Finally (?) Mike Metroulas set it out nicely.

The popular myth that the Constitution was left purposely vague is right up there with the existence of Santa Claus. True, the limited powers written into the document were almost immediately exceeded, hence the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, but the Constitution was promoted to the states for ratification in generally the same way the Tea Party promotes the document… that it was clear, limited, and would be strictly adhered to; this was the only way the thing could be agreed to by many states in the first place.  I teach this each semester and my freshmen juco students seem to grasp it quite handily. The framers dealt in what they considered to be “truths”, not fleeting improvisational platitudes which would make the drafting a constitution moot in the first place.

This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.

Parents of 9 year old Christina Green

for the last post ..... here's Pelosi

 http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GdSU2GZu8z

and here's Phil Hare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU5HcIQ14UM&feature=player_embedded

and in case you thought it was a one-off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=721fGd_Lvlw&feature=player_embedded

wanna read some for yourself?  Pelosi here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971, Phil Hare here http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/02/democratic-lawmaker-dont-worry-constitution-health-care-overhaul/

and a writeup on Ezra Klein's WaPo article that started alot of this 

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/310188.php

This has been brewing for a few years but recent events have brought it to the forefront. Starting wit my classes and easing it's way into my social life I have reduced my discussion points on contemporary issues to first principles. Depending on the answer I get to very basic intro level questions I either terminate the conversation or move a little deeper. I think this started with the Donks think Elphs are evil, Elphs think Donks are stupid theory.

For instance, when a Donk friend asked me about the healthcare “debate” last spring and which side I was on I started at the being. “Where does healthcare come from?” My friend responded “healthcare providers.” A good start. My classes usually responded “the government” which calls from some long backtracking. The conversation with my friend continues along familiar lines: who decides what the healthcare providers get paid? What happens when the gov't decide this? End result: either no more healthcare providers or constructive slavery. At which point my friend walks away. But rather than getting into what then passed for debate on Obamacare I went to root cases. The conversation was quickly terminated because we weren't even starting at the same place. I raised issues usually not encountered in “polite” conversation because there's this assumption that we all stat from the same place and somewhere along the way digress or diverge or differ.

The recent “debate” over the Constitution has really brought things home. Guess it shoulda come to light when the videos of all of those Donk congresscritters asking what the Constitution had to do with healthcare reform came to light. But it didn't. I thought they were just outlier. Nope. Instead it turns out a significant portion of the left has been playing by a different set of rules for quite a few years. More later

Got a long one coming on this topic .... perhas a series .... brought about by the revelation this week that the Constitution doesn't mean to the left what it means to the rights.  I'm speaking of course of the kerfuffle Ezra Klein started - "written over 100 years ago" stuff.  So was "Take me out to the ballgame" dude.

Anyway, I'm trying to put it together in my head so it isn't TOO disjointed, which it will be anyway.

Last week Chris Beam's wrote an explanation/takedown of libertarianism in the New Yorker.  Connor Freiedersdorf did a nicetakedown.  Whole thing worth a look, but my favorite part:

Here is how Beam defines the political philosophy for readers of New York:

Libertarianism is a long, clunky word for a simple, elegant idea: that government should do as little as possible. In Libertarianism: A Primer, Cato Institute executive vice president David Boaz defines it as “the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others.” Like any political philosophy, libertarianism contains a thousand substrains, ranging from anarchists who want to destroy the state to picket-fence conservatives who just want to put power in local hands. The traditional libertarian line is that government should be responsible for a standing army, local security, and a courts system, and that’s it—a system called minarchy. But everyone has his own idea of how to get there. Washington-think-tank libertarians take an incrementalist approach within the two-party system. The Libertarian Party offers a third way. Ayn Rand–inspired Objectivists promote their ideas through education. Reason magazine preaches the gospel of cultural libertarianism. Silicon Valley techno-entrepreneurs would invent their way to Libertopia. Wall Street free-marketers want deregulation. The Free State Project plans to concentrate 20,000 libertarians in New Hampshire. “Seasteaders” dream of building societies on the ocean. And then there are the regular old Glenn Beck disciples who just want to be left alone.

This is a perfectly fair if what you're doing is defining libertarianism with the space constraints of a magazine article. But I submit that it has all the flaws and limits of this:

Non-libertarianism is a long, clunky word for the view that even if a person is respecting the equal rights of others, he or she doesn’t have a right to live life in the way of their choosing. Like any political philosophy, it contains a thousand sub-strains, ranging from communists to fascists. The traditional non-libertarian belief is effectively that government should operate free of strict limits established by first principles or the Constitution. But everyone has their preferred vision of life in a non-libertarian state. Washington-think-tank non-libertarians take an incrementalist approach within the two-party system. The Green Party offers a third way. Jesus Christ–inspired Catholics promote their ideas through education. Oprah preaches the gospel of cultural non-libertarianism. Ivy League public policy wonks would invent their way to Non-Libertopia. Wall Street corporations want bailouts and regulations that disadvantage competitors. No project is needed to concentrate a majority of non-libertarians in New Hampshire. And then there are the regular old AARP members who just want Social Security and Medicare to continue without any cuts until they die.

Matt Welch took on Beam's article, as did Radley Balko, right here on Hit and Run.

My guys on PTI were rediculing the performance of the Big Ten in te recent Bowl go round ... but how bad were they REALLY?  Let's take a look.

1.  Iowa over Mizzou  in AZ as an underdog.  Win

2.  Illinois over Baylor in TX as an underdog.  Win

3.  Northwestern loss to Texas Tech at home as a dog.  They covered the spread against a home team.  Call it a "plus"

4.  Penn State loss as a dog vs Florida playig at home.  Call it a minus.

5.  MSU as a dog against the SEC i SEC country.  Dey got blowed up.  Loss

6.  Same for Michigan.

7.  Wisconsin was a dog against the team that many felt/feel should be playing for the national title.  And covered the spread.  Call it a plus.

8.  OSU covers the spread vs SEC in SEC land.  Win.

on the whole, not a bad performance.  Take out the state up north and it was a pretty GOOD performance!