Day Twelve of Stengel-Gate: He Gains a Defender! (Update: A Document Only Wants Things When I Say it Does!) (Update: Ashford Shuts Down the Comments on His Post!) (Update: Ashford Tries to Justify Shutting Down the Comments)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: In the comments section in Ashford’s post, Brother Bradley and I have been challenging Ashford particularly the claim regarding emancipation. We got him to admit that clearly they were referring to Congress when they were drafting the Fourteenth Amendment and he replies as follows:
[quoting me] Except you just said “I am talking about the thinking of Congress at the time of writing the 14th Amendment.”
And when was that?
Unless you are taking everything uber-literally, as if Congress, at exactly one moment (and only one moment) in time, together(!) wrote the 14th Amendment, and had shared a single thought while doing it.
Which is pretty much giving up the whole game. He is basically admitting that Stengel was literally wrong (or if you prefer uber-literally, heh) and the only way to rehabilitate his statement was to imagine he meant something he didn’t actually say.
And for the record, when was this? 1866-1868. And when was the Thirteen Amendment ratified? 1865.
Now you might wonder why I am saying that here, instead of other there? Well, right after after putting up this post, asking me a specific question, he shut off comments on the post. Mind you, the post right before it is still open to comments, so plainly he intentionally he shut down that post and that post only, because he got sick of us arguing with him.
Which is pretty funny, when you think about it.
Update: The comedy gold becomes more… um… golden. He now has an explanation for why he shut down the comments:
The ankle-biters seem to think that repeating the same fallacious argument over and over again amounts to moving the ball forward in some way, and I don’t have the time or inclination to respond to the same bad arguments five or six times.
Which is false, but also interestingly an admission that he was shutting it down purely because he doesn’t like our arguments. The irony and hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a spoon.
(This will be viewed as a “victory” by the ankle-biters, but rest assured, it’s merely shaking them off to address more pressing things in my day).
No, Ken, the victory was when you admitted I was “uber-literally” right which is another way of saying the word “right.” The fact you make that concession and leave me no chance to respond on your blog means you know you lost and didn’t want the coup de grace of pointing that obvious fact out on your own blog. In real litigation, there are rarely “Perry Mason moments” when you finally get the person to just confess. The best you usually get are moments like these, when your opponent’s behavior gives away the truth.
We now resume the original post, as is.
——————————————-
Regular readers know the story, but a momentary recap is worthwhile for those unfamiliar with the story. A few weeks back, Richard Stengel published a terrible piece in Time magazine about the Constitution. Apart from the philosophical problems I have with it, I was particularly appalled by the numerous factual errors in it and eventually wrote a piece outlining fourteen clear factual errors in the article and have been hammering the magazine on a nearly daily basis trying to embarrass them into either a correction or a retraction.
Okay, so are you caught up?
But one thing that I think is interesting in all of this is that as far as I know, no one on the left has stepped up to defend Richard Stengel’s terrible essay. Surely they had seen my posts outlining fourteen clear factual errors Stengel had made, but no one stepped up and said, “it’s not this bad, and here is why?”
Well, that is until Ken Ashford of The Seventh Sense came along. Of course even then he can’t bring himself to defend what Stengel actually said, so instead he has decided to pretend he didn’t actually say these things, by, ahem, creative misinterpretation.
For instance, let’s take this passage in Stengel’s piece:
In drafting the 14th Amendment, Congress was definitely not thinking about illegal immigration. At the time, the country needed a lot more immigrants, legal or otherwise. Congress was thinking more practically. It wanted to emancipate blacks and allow them to vote so that white Southern Democrats would not try to reverse the gains of the Civil War.
(emphasis added.) I read that as Stengel declaring that the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to free the slaves and end racial discrimination in the franchise. But, Ashford explains, there’s supposedly a nuance there that I missed:
When Stengel wrote “It wanted to emancipate blacks….”, the “it” clearly modified “Congress”, not “the 14th Amendment”.
Well, yes, “it” refers to Congress, but not Congress in general. He wasn’t talking, for instance, about this current Congress. He was talking about the Congress that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment and specifically when they were drafting the Citizenship Clause, which guarantees most people born on U.S. soil birthright citizenship. Go to Stengel’s original piece and read the whole section it comes from, which is discussing illegal immigration. The whole section is about nothing but the Citizenship Clause and was discussing their intent when drafting it. And he wasn’t discussing hopes and dreams they failed to enact, but explaining the goals and purpose of what they did enact, as he saw it, when they drafted and ratified the Citizenship Clause. But that clause, and indeed the entire Fourteenth Amendment was drafted and ratified wholly after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which is the actual amendment that emancipated the slaves.
He also attempts to rehabilitate the claim that the Citizenship Clause would give them the right to vote by trying to put a words into Stengel’s mouth that just weren’t there (which is ironic because he accuses me of doing that all the time):
Stengel was… saying… that Congress intended — through the 14th Amendment and in conjunction with the other amendments — to give the franchise to freed blacks.
(Emphasis added.) Except again, he didn’t make an reference to any other amendment and frankly, the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment hadn’t originally planned on adding anything like the Fifteenth Amendment. Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment was expected to do the job for them, by giving states an incentive to grant universal male suffrage. Then subsequent to its ratification, the Republicans changed their mind and decided to push through the Fifteenth Amendment, after all. His suggestion that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were part of some master plan is simply wrong.
He further claims that I was wrong to state that Stengel did not believe that the Original Constitution limited the Federal Government. Let’s quote that passage, again:
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. And it ends with the “necessary and proper” clause, which delegates to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Limited government indeed.
(emphasis added.) So how does he get around that? Well, first he quibbles between the concept of the Constitution saying it is limiting the Federal government, and actually doing so. So he is arguing that if the Constitution didn’t say it was limiting the federal government, that it would still be limited. Even if you accept that approach, it doesn’t make Stengel statement suddenly factual. So then he says this:
[Worthing] then proceeds to show how it can be INFERRED that the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, by pointing to certain passages which show limitations on Federal Power.
A.W.’s not wrong about that — if you look at certain passages of the Constitiution, it clearly limits federal power. But if you look at other passages of the Constitution, it clearly grants federal power. So, taking both together, A.W. hasn’t proven Stengel wrong. He just looks at different parts of the Constitution, and comes with a different implication.
(emphasis added.) Do you see what he is trying to do, here? He is trying to pretend that Stengel was talking about whether the general purpose of the Constitution is to limit the Federal government. But that isn’t what Stengel said. He said, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so” and Ashford has explicitly admitted (in the boldface portion) that there are passages that limit the power of the federal government. He just wants to pretend he said something that he didn’t.
Next he attempts to rehabilitate this passage from Stengel’s essay declaring that the Constitution is not law:
Originalists contend that the Constitution has a clear, fixed meaning. But the framers argued vehemently about its meaning. For them, it was a set of principles, not a code of laws. A code of laws says you have to stop at the red light; a constitution has broad principles that are unchanging but that must accommodate each new generation and circumstance.
So how does he attempt to rehabilitate this passage? By pretending that the word “code” saves him.
Well except it doesn’t. Here’s Webster’s definition of Code of Laws:
a systematic statement of a body of law; especially: one given statutory force
Which, gosh, can include a written Constitution. And indeed Ashford even implicitly agrees. Notice his language here:
Most commonly, the law comes in the form of statutes — i.e. a written, detailed, formalized codex of laws, each with (ideally) clear and fixed meanings.
If the term “code” (or oddly, “codex”) implied that it had to be written, details, formalized, etc., he wouldn’t have had to modify it with those terms.
And consider further how Stengel pretends that the Constitution is different: “A code of laws says you have to stop at the red light.” But in the same piece he also says: “The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, basically holds that if you’re physically born in the U.S. or a U.S. territory, you’re a citizen. Full stop.” Which is technically inaccurate but let’s pretend it isn’t and ask this question: how exactly is that different in nature by that rule on traffic?
Next, Ashord tries to rehabilitate this passage:
The framers were not gods and were not infallible. 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[.]
I found two errors there, first referring to the three-fifths clause, and second referring to women’s suffrage. Taking them out of order, how did Ashford try to rehabilitate the claim that they gave us the idea that women were not allowed to vote? This one is precious:
All he said was that we, as a society, were given the idea that women should not be allowed to vote. And how were we given that idea? Because the original unamended Constitution, for all its protections, failed to give THAT protection.
Got that? So by failing to ratify something like the Nineteenth Amendment right in the beginning, the founders “gave us the idea” that women should not be allowed to vote.
Of course by that logic, they also gave us the idea that the Irish should not be allowed to vote, and the same with Germans, too, because there is nothing in the original Constitution protecting them from discrimination in the franchise (but now the Fifteenth Amendment would). For that matter, white people generally enjoy no protection for the right to vote and neither do men, under the original Constitution. So I guess they gave us the idea that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, either.
And it’s interesting that he only cites and attempts to refudiate my analysis at Patterico’s Pontifications, because if you looked at the expanded piece at Big Journalism, you will also see this:
Indeed, as Jonathan Adler (who blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy) pointed out to me in an email, women were allowed to vote in New Jersey from 1776-1807, subject to certain property requirements.
I guess they didn’t get the message in New Jersey.
Finally, how does he try to get around the blatant falsehood regarding the three-fifth clause? Well, he can’t deny that the Constitution doesn’t actually say that about black persons—it says that about slaves—so instead he tries to say that it sent a message of inferiority:
Well, that’s fine, but A.W. apparently hadn’t noticed that Stengel was making a sociological point, not a legal one. Stengel was talking about a notion that the framers gave us, rather than the literal text of the Constitution.
So somehow the framers gave us an idea which in fact they didn’t actually say, and didn’t actually mean. Indeed, he is hoping you don’t know who was on which side in the debate surrounding that clause. Let me take a moment to clear this subject up.
This clause is always cited by people as proof that to the framers, a slave (or sometimes black people) were considered three-fifths of a person. But ask yourself this: who was clamoring to count them as whole people for purposes of representation? The South was. That should tell you all you need to know. The more persons who are counted in the census, the greater their power in the Congress. And the Southern Planters wanted to see their power increased by using the bodies of the slaves, without giving those slaves the right to vote. Then, in turn, they would use that increased power to block any measure to end or diminish slavery. So the slave would be used as tool to ensure the continuation of his or her own bondage. So contrary to what you might have been told, the outrage of the three fifths clause isn’t that slaves were not counted as whole persons; it was that they were counted at all.
(Of course, ideally slavery shouldn’t have existed on the date of ratification at all, but I digress.)
Now, as he suggests in his post, I know this guy. He has followed my work closely enough that it is not plausible that he didn’t know I have given that spiel several times. So he is just hoping that his reader doesn’t know that. But once you do, you realize that this provision literally had nothing to do with the worth of either a slave or a black person, and had everything to do with a fight for political power.
Besides, Ashford’s proposed interpretation for Stengel’s words—that this was about what society thought, and not what was in the Constitution—makes no sense in context. Let’s look at the whole passage:
The framers were not gods and were not infallible. 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. They did not give us income taxes. Or Prohibition. Those came later.
So let’s list all the things, good or bad, that he lists the framer gave us:
1. a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms,
2. freedom of speech, assembly, religion,
3. the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being,
4. [the idea] that women were not allowed to vote, and
5. [the idea] that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California
And look at what he says they did not give us: prohibition or income taxes.
In example 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the things the original framers gave us, and in the case of both of the things that they didn’t, he was referring to Constitutional provisions as Ashford generally acknowledges. But suddenly number 3, and number 3 alone is not referring to the Constitution? Give me a break.
And he goes on to imply that it is equally true about every other fact I correct, writing:
By now, you should have the tools to go back to Aaron Worthing’s original post and see the same game played over and over again. The formula, in short, works this way:
(1) Constitutional scholar Richard Stengel writes X
(2) Ankle-biter Aaron Worthing says that Stengel wrote Y
(3) Ankle-biter Aaron Worthing “proves” that Stengel was wrong about Y
(4) Ankle-biter Aaron Worthing does a victory dance and tries to make a name for himself based on 1-3
(5) Blogosphere yawns
(6) Repeat 1 through 5 until it becomes too embarassing [sic] to look at
He does that, because he ran out of ways to try to pretend that Stengel didn’t say what he said. For instance, it is really hard to claim that he didn’t claim that inter arma enim silent leges translates as ‘in time of war, the Constitution is silent’” when Stengel writes: “There is an old Latin phrase, inter arma enim silent leges, which roughly translates as ‘in time of war, the Constitution is silent.’”
Nor could he plausibly claim that I mischaracterized Stengel’s words when I said he claim that “we have only declared war five times” given that he said this: “Since the signing of the Constitution in 1787, Congress has declared war exactly five times[.]”
I mean there is only so much a dedicated liar can do.
And if I can be forgiven for a little pride, it’s hardly the case that the blogosphere has yawned. For example, I don’t think I am revealing anything to point out that my first Big Journalism post came about because Dana Loesch DM’ed me on Twitter to ask if I would like to submit it to their site. My posts on the subject have achieved “feature story” status on that site and right now “Patterico Worthing Stengel” gets over 8,000 results on google. No, what that “blogosphere yawns” line is really about is his deep, pathetic jealousy.
Update: In the comments Aunursa catches something I missed. Let me quote him in full:
In his first point, Ashford wrote:
So what Stengel was ACTUALLY saying was that the Constitution does not specify its intent. It is silent as to whether it intends to limit the federal government, or expand it.
Later in his third point, Ashford wrote:
When Stengel wrote “It wanted to emancipate blacks….”, the “it” clearly modified “Congress”, not “the 14th Amendment”. Stengel wasn’t saying that the 14th Amendment wanted to emancipate blacks (an amendmant wants something?)
So Ashford mocks the idea that a Constitutional amendment can “want” something, but he implies that the Constitution could “intend” something.
Gee, its almost like as if the guy reflexively disagrees with me or something (besides the point that he is mocking something I didn’t actually say).
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
I notice that such a long winded liberal didnt even touch other points Stengel wrote about
This is a cheap new rallying cry amongst democrats to rally the base by claiming the constitution is a Republican (conservative) document and it can be ignored
They are right on the first point and they are wrong on the second
EricPWJohnson (2921b6) — 7/10/2011 @ 3:57 amTime is the magazine that knows no shame.
Mike Myers (0e06a9) — 7/10/2011 @ 5:51 amKmart is really quite pathetic.
JD (b98cae) — 7/10/2011 @ 6:23 amI have actually also been looking for a critique of your now-famous “14 Thesis.” I’m not a Constitutional scholar (or am I? I could probably write an article as poor as Stengel’s) so I’m on shaky ground when it comes to evaluating your arguments.
I basically read them and said “hurray for our side!”
But seriously, if this is the best that the Left can do (and, more telling, the only effort the Left is willing to bestir itself to) then I have to conclude that your arguments are pretty rock solid.
So, I’ll continue to wave my little flag and root for my own team.
Hurrah!
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 7/10/2011 @ 6:32 amPS – I stand corrected.
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 7/10/2011 @ 6:37 amAaron, consider adding a dictionary definition of inter arma enim silent leges so Stengel’s error is clear for new readers.
Similarly, your point about his misrepresentation of the instances of declared war can be strengthened by adding the factual information.
Although your post is strongly persuasive, driving the nail home in the concluding paragraphs would make it irrefragable.
ropelight (78f846) — 7/10/2011 @ 6:42 amPious
now, don’t go there again. 🙂
Breitbart has commanded me to say that, btw. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/10/2011 @ 6:43 amYou can’t blame for trying to get in on some of this blog action, Aaron, but my ‘Cousin Vinny’ would have better arguments.
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/10/2011 @ 7:01 am#7 Aaron
I hear and obey.
NB: Today’s secret message is encoded in that episode of “I Love Lucy” with Harpo. Use decoder setting “O’keefe”.
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 7/10/2011 @ 7:44 amSpeaking of emancipating blacks. . .
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/10/2011 @ 8:06 amEhrenstein is about to go on one of his hyper-manic phases again.
The surest way to get kmart to support something is for AW to oppose it. Kmart is reflexive in that regard, even if it means spinning like the Tasmanian Devil, and supporting things that are just flat out wrong.
JD (85b089) — 7/10/2011 @ 8:14 am“Hyper-manic”? Shirley you jest.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/10/2011 @ 8:19 amCan I just say again how much I’m loving Milhouse’s “Ignore this user” script?
Poof! Ehrenstein is gone!
Pious Agnostic (6048a8) — 7/10/2011 @ 8:20 amSpeaking of resorting to race-baiting as a fig leaf for naked self-promotion, a pathetic barking dog disturbs the morning air…and people close their windows.
ropelight (78f846) — 7/10/2011 @ 8:24 amActually, if you want to get really technical, no one has gone far enough in who the Constitution “denies” the vote to.
For Senators and members of the Electoral College, it says the State legislatures will decide. That right there is a massive restriction on voting “rights”.
For Representatives, Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1 says only:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
That’s it.
It doesn’t say what the qualifications for Electors of the most numerous Branch of each State Legislature must be, it only says they must be the same in each state. Indeed, it does not even say they must be the same in each state.
Now typically each State had higher property requirements for the less numerous Branch of its Legislature, but they typically had property/wealth requirements of some sort for the most numerous Branch at that time.
So yes, in point of absolute fact, the Founders very much did give us the idea that members of specific national groups, ethnic groups, and even men, did not have any inherent right to vote in Federal elections, and by extension in State elections.
The only thing the Federal Constitution originally guarantees is that if, IF!!!!, you meet the requirements of the State you reside in to vote for the most numerous Branch of the State’s Legislature, with no standard for those requirements or transfer of those requirements, then you can vote for Federal Representative from that State.
If you did not, by reason of age, race, sex, term of residency, property requirement, other wealth requirement, or whatever else the State Legislature could come up with, too bad.
Mind you, they did insist that each State have a “republican form of government”, but that in no way extended to mandating State-level voting rights, and by extension Federal Representative voting rights.
Sam (8d527c) — 7/10/2011 @ 8:46 amif flatulence is
ColonelHaiku (822dce) — 7/10/2011 @ 8:51 ampassed and no one witnesses
does it make a stink?
Aaron:
In his first point, Ashford wrote:
Later in his third point, Ashford wrote:
So Ashford mocks the idea that a Constitutional amendment can “want” something, but he implies that the Constitution could “intend” something.
aunursa (f1f4c4) — 7/10/2011 @ 9:32 amSpeaking of emancipating blacks. . .
Comment by David Ehrenstein —
David, I’m curious. Do you have any data on the topic or are you just screaming “Look at me !” again?
Mike K (8f3f19) — 7/10/2011 @ 9:46 amFrom the 7th sense:
Wiki of Peter Jenning’s life:
Aaron, aren’t you glad you did not come close to working for a foundation of somebody that got his first job through nepotism and did not make it through high-school (I assume you like the girls though).
I have no problem with dropping out of school (I made it through the first 12 years mostly on autopilot–gosh school was mind numbingly boring–but yes, get through school, dropping out is not easy in this society, unless you are a journalist)–but credentials are everything with “these guys”.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/10/2011 @ 9:48 am______________________________________________
The one thing — the one thing — that really irks me the most about people like Ashford is their undoubtedly believing liberal bias gives a humane, tolerant, compassionate, generous, sophisticated glow to humans. And that such characteristics certainly far exceed what’s found among those (or can’t be found, period) on the right.
Beyond leftists having a tendency to debate like a bunch of disingenuous, nonsensical kids, their ass-backwards way of judging people, situations and things (including the US Constitution) makes them about as reliable and trustworthy as, say, Jeremiah Wright.
Notice how Ashford is so dishonest and foolish, he can’t even admit that the guy now in the White House, until controversy forced his hand, schmoozed with Reverend “Goddamn America” right up until the bitter end. Therefore, mentor becomes “mentor.”
^ A quick survey of other comments from Ashford’s blog indicates its host is no less of an ass-backwards leftist when it comes to controversies like Islam — which, after all, is an aspect of the poor, misunderstood, pitiful, sad, underdog Third World! — compared with the Western World. So he displays great patience and tolerance towards Islamism, while being the type who deems far too much of Christianity (or, specifically, conservatism) in the West as nothing but mean-spirited, intolerant, horribly fundamentalist attitudes.
In general, if one chips away at the surface of liberals like Ashford or Stengel, I’d be surprised if what makes them tick isn’t about as sincere and honest as the idiosyncrasies of limousine liberalism.
Mark (411533) — 7/10/2011 @ 9:50 amIt’s purely ad hoc. He enters this discussion simply motivated at proving Aaron is wrong. It’s clear from the onset he’s got some kind of problem with Aaron. That’s why he is inconsistent even at the most fundamental interpretive level. It’s really quite jarring when you put it that way
Anyhow, EPWJ also has a very good point that Ken selectively choosing points to refute is weak at best. That these six were the best he can do is actually a strong indictment of Richard, as they require him to hold conflicting ideas at the same time while radically misreading Richard’s own errors out of his article.
But I meant what I said when I praised him for being a relative saint, compared to his first commenter. Ken and Aaron can debate these ideas forever. That’s what free speech looks like. Ken is not afraid to at least try to take Aaron down merely by argument, and while he doesn’t succeed, that shows that Ken is a better lefty than some.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/10/2011 @ 9:54 amThat is always something that has confused me…
Democrats are the party of Slavery, KKK, and Jim Crow laws, to name a few…
They conducted terrorism against Republican and Republican Blacks after the Civil War.
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/10/2011 @ 9:58 amWhat’s sad is that he’s describing judgments based on race and then claiming it’s not racism because of race conflict in generations past that was also racism.
He simply claims it’s ‘justifiable’ and then figures that means it’s not racism anymore.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/10/2011 @ 10:16 amOne could actually go further, and say the Klan’s intimidation of Blacks and others around the 1876
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/10/2011 @ 10:17 amelection, was such that it tipped the balance in several states, necessitating the ‘supposed fraud’
that they leveraged against Hayes, to force a pullout of Union forces, and end Reconstruction,.
In all fairness, That Seventh Sense post made at least one valid point: Stengel distinguished between a code of laws and a statement of general principles, powers and limitations such as the Constitution. I’ve seen such a distinction made in reading about the Founders; they were aware of the difference, and why it’s important.
But the attempt to defend Stengel’s description of the 14th Amendment as reflecting Congress’ intention instead of the amendment itself is a distinction without a difference. There’s no way Congress could have intended to “emancipate” slaves with the 14th Amendment when that had already been accomplished with the 13th Amendment.
In my view, Stengel appears to have meant that the 14th Amendment helped effectuate emancipation by giving former slaves additional protection, but that’s not what he actually wrote. Maybe Stengel just isn’t very good with words.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (182e27) — 7/10/2011 @ 10:23 amBTW, I keep thinking about the 14th amendment’s language on not questioning American debt. Some democrats are taking that in the wild direction of granting Obama the power to sell bonds, which would obviously not be authorized by law and not valid American debt.
However, I was thinking this actually means our current budget is unconstitutional. If it’s not possible to service our debt without conflicting with our debt ceiling, then the debt is not authorized by congress. We’ve set up a train that runs off the tracks. We have to borrow and borrow more debt, sinking further, just to pay the debt we already have. But it’s not authorized by congress, explicitly, given the debt ceiling.
How am I screwing this up?
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/10/2011 @ 10:25 amaun
good catch.
dustin
on justifiable racism… so if a certain number of black people mug me, i can hate all black people?
now it is human to be like that, but we shouldn’t be saying its okay.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/10/2011 @ 10:27 amNow here is a Constitution that a person can sink their teeth into… EU Constitution and all 219 Pages (PDF).
Hmmm… Nothing about Traffic Lights or Signals–So this is not Code of Laws either:
1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
3. Trafficking in human beings is prohibited.
[signal] not found
BfC (2ebea6) — 7/10/2011 @ 10:42 am[stop] not found
[yellow] not found
[green] not found
We most certainly should not. I am sick and tired of folks caring what race people are in the first place. It’s corrosive. When used to justify hate, it’s just plain evil. As far as practical justification, it’s clear democrat run areas are particularly crappy for minorities. They use race baiting to avoid accountability. It’s the very opposite of justifiable.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/10/2011 @ 10:51 amDustin, there’s enough money coming in to pay the debt, and all the government’s contractual obligations, so there’s no constitutional crisis.
What there isn’t enough money to do is pay all that and all the other spending Congress has appropriated, but which is not required by the constitution. Now Robert Levy of the Cato Institute has argued that by appropriating that money Congress has implicitly authorised enough debt to cover it; but I think that flies in the face of Congress’s having explicitly placed a limit on the debt it authorised.
So what’s a president to do when the money runs out? First pay off what the constitution requires him to. There’s plenty of money for that. Then pay what statute explicitly requires him to do, or as much of it as he can. If he can’t pay it all, then he has no choice but to ignore some of Congress’s appropriations, or to sell assets to cover them. And he can certainly ignore the Anti-Impoundment Act; Congress can’t require him to spend money he hasn’t got.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/10/2011 @ 10:53 amYes, this is true. They just have to prioritize servicing the debt.
Seems like that’s what he swore to do when he took his oath of office. Faithfully handle issues like this. It’s not a task anyone can handle, apparently. He has to resist the temptation to create an economic crisis by using revenue in a way that prioritizes his wishes over what is mandatory.
Still, while I do stand corrected, we are operating under a budget that is simply not authorized by our current rules. I suppose the idea of scrapping the entire budget (or continuing resolution?) until they can come up with one that doesn’t conflict with the rules is asking too much these days.
What I am trying to say is that a budget that cannot be valid with the maximum authorized debt is no more constitutional than passing a law banning political speech.
What you’re saying is that we can just sever the parts that go beyond what is possible, which obviously makes a lot of sense, but still I’m frustrated.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:06 amAnd it’s interesting that he only cites and attempts to refudiate my analysis at Patterico’s Pontifications, because if you looked at the expanded piece at Big Journalism, you will also see this
You really meant to say refudiate, didn’t you?
Good lad. Keep up the good work.
ukuleledave (32fa20) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:07 amUkulele, I do enjoy his ability to not take himself too seriously.
I also enjoy when he shows he’s not above a little direct analysis like this.
The comments directed at Aaron’s work being boring or unnoticed where both strangely personal and quite untrue. Had he simply resisted that pathetic argument, his argument would have come across as much more serious. After all, Ken worked hard on this analysis. He shouldn’t pretend it doesn’t matter.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:14 amuke
> You really meant to say refudiate, didn’t you?
Yes, absolutely.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:20 amWhen was the last time the Dems actually passed a budget?
JD (d48c3b) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:27 amBtw, this is what he wrote on June 7 about WEinergate:
Emphasis added. So to review, he felt that weiner was sexting underage girls, but because he never stood up for any morality, he shouldn’t resign.
(never mind that he did sponsor a bill to keep creeps away from children on the internets.)
lovely guy, this Ashford.
http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/blog/2011/06/the-end-of-weiner.html
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:28 amKmart unmasked?
Patterico (f724ca) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:30 amApril 29, 2009. Obama had been president for three mere months. Michael Jackson was alive. I was buying a TV at Circuit City just a couple of weeks before. No one knew what an iPad was.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:32 amActually, I could speculate that Ken didn’t really read either Richard’s work or Aaron’s couple of complete discussions of it in their entirely.
Perhaps that explains some of the problems. But I think this reaction is uncharitable. By wordcount, it at least appears Ken was making a very serious attempt to expose the greatest weaknesses he could find after a thorough review. Hence, he is granting Richard was absolutely wrong in eight ways, and we can consider the six he is willing to discuss. Since those six attempts involve blatantly misunderstanding what Richard said, it’s not doing Time any good.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:35 amWhy are we calling him Ken and pretending that is not kmart?
JD (b98cae) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:40 amAt #25 Brother Bradley put a zinger across Richard Stengle’s bow, “Maybe Stengel just isn’t very good with words.” That’s quite an observation from one professional journalist to another, especially given Stengle’s long and distinguished resume.
Perhaps it isn’t only words that escape Stengle’s grasp, but the ability to think clearly as well. If he can’t think straight it follows that he won’t be able to write it down in a way that makes sense.
But that’s not it either. Stengle thinks and writes well enough, he’s a well educated and accomplished man. His problem isn’t execution, it’s intention. Stengle wants to bamboozle his readers into accepting a fraud. His intentional mischaracterization of the Constitution fits the Left’s current agenda-driven talking points like a glove.
Stengle knows he’s twisting the clear meaning of time honored constitutional provisions into convenient fictions, and he knows that anyone with a high school education and the brains of a parsnip can see through his obvious deceptions.
Stengle was willing to sully his reputation for a purpose, he did it to serve the temporary partisan interests of his political party. Stengle’s problem isn’t words, it’s the lack of personal integrity.
ropelight (78f846) — 7/10/2011 @ 11:56 amspendthrift Obama
ColonelHaiku (f2ed50) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:08 pmblack middle class disappears
great job democrats!
clear rational thought
ColonelHaiku (f2ed50) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:11 pmnot one of Left’s stronger points
but we all know that
each day we witness
ColonelHaiku (f2ed50) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:12 pmcommon sense not so common
these are troubled times
“No one knew what an iPad was.”
Hey, some of us STILL don’t know what an iPad is.
Dave Surls (2bb434) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:15 pmliberals tell us
ColonelHaiku (f2ed50) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:15 pmConstitution lives and breathes
clay in their sick hands
don’t piss on my leg
ColonelHaiku (f2ed50) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:17 pmand tell me it is raining
to Hell with the Left
“I like Anthony Weiner and his brand of politics.”
Me too. Get caught red-handed being a complete scumbag, then get forced out of office.
Wish all lefties/Dim-o-crats would follow that brand of politics.
Dave Surls (2bb434) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:18 pmAaron needs to wear
elissa (26a465) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:18 pmAn “ankle biter” T shirt
And be very proud
D’OH! by the Great Thor’s
ColonelHaiku (f2ed50) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:24 pmMighty Hammer it pain me
to have fat ass kicked
Learning from a master, Colonel.
elissa (26a465) — 7/10/2011 @ 12:30 pmbtw, there is this “ankle biter” t-shirt you can buy.
http://www.shop.dachshunddelights.com/products/Ankle_Biter_Ale_T_shirt_Burgundy-69-8.html
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/10/2011 @ 1:13 pmIt’s easy to think of Kman as Ken:
Vacant smile, non-existent genitalia . . . stick up his a$$ ….
Says nothing meaningful.
Icy Texan (d52144) — 7/10/2011 @ 1:36 pmIcy
Well, my official comment on that kind of speculation is… not to answer.
And that means neither that he is or isn’t. I’m not starting down the road of saying who he is or isn’t even if you guess, because i might accidentaly let it slip, and this is a point of honor with me.
i mean i am pretty sure that kman, whoever he is, doesn’t want ppl to know who he is either 1) because he is such a complete douche online or 2) because he is such a liberal in a conservative place (and a douchey liberal at that). joking aside, i do believe he should be able to be anonymous here. now, if he breached it by his own stupidity, that is another matter.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/10/2011 @ 1:53 pmRauhauser’s idiocy outed him, AW. How funny is that?!
JD (b98cae) — 7/10/2011 @ 1:58 pmOh, and then kmart plagiarized himself, which was simply beyond parody.
JD (306f5d) — 7/10/2011 @ 1:59 pm_____________________________________________
Weiner was never the sanctomonious holier-than-thou type, and now we know that he doesn’t have good reason to be
Of course, it’s okay to be guilty of limousine liberalism—and one does not have to be wealthy to exhibit that type of two-faced behavior (ie, most liberals, in effect, are limousine liberals).
You know, the ones who publicly state their love of public schools while sending their own kids to private ones (Hi, Barack!). Or the “LLs” who talk a good game of green-earth politics while living like…Al Gore.
Or the LLs similar to an icon of the Democrat Party, Franklin Roosevelt, who publicly excoriated the wealthy for not paying more in taxes, or trying to avoid them, while having the gall to tell the IRS that the higher taxes he himself had signed into law didn’t apply to his own substantial income.
I won’t say anything about all the LLs who quickly point the finger of “RACISM!!!” at anyone and everyone, while telling their real-estate agent behind closed doors to avoid looking for homes in THAT part of town. Or the LLs who yell “HOMOPHOBIC!” at anyone and everyone, while getting a bit disturbed at the notion of their teenage son kissing the captain of the high-school football team.
Mark (411533) — 7/10/2011 @ 2:02 pmAmazingly, Ken is still defending Stengel’s erroneous statement that Congress intended the 14th Amendment to emancipate the slaves.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (182e27) — 7/10/2011 @ 2:58 pmHence, he is granting Richard was absolutely wrong in eight ways, and we can consider the six he is willing to discuss.
I just noticed that peculiarity. Ken can’t seem to admit that Stengel was wrong about anything, yet he’s chosen not to defend the majority of his challenged statements.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (182e27) — 7/10/2011 @ 3:02 pmMik (@ commnet #18) Did you read what I posted at that link? If so I’m not sure why you’re asking me that question.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/10/2011 @ 3:19 pmActually… look at the timestamps, my friend. It appears Ken plagiarized Kman.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/10/2011 @ 3:22 pmMark would you happend to have a picture of the captain of the football team?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/10/2011 @ 3:22 pmAaron #54: methinks Icy was referring to Barbie’s consort. But I admire your honor, since both Ks like to insult you. Yet Kman wishes to be anonymous, despite the fact you know his identity, and he cannot help but insult and stalk you. Bois will be bois, I suppose.
Simon Jester (6ea1ed) — 7/10/2011 @ 3:55 pmthere once was a putz at Time magazine
ColonelHaiku (f2ed50) — 7/10/2011 @ 4:55 pmwho failed to note that his clock was cleaned
his posture more mincing
his take unconvincing
a scholar force fed on lean cuisine
Aaron,
When your last name becomes a verb (to be Worthinged), you know you’ve arrived.
I suggest you take Robert Bork out for a drink.
peter (37780f) — 7/10/2011 @ 5:27 pmI guess that is better than plagiarizing oneself. Or is that an unfair assessment, Kman?
Simon Jester (6ea1ed) — 7/10/2011 @ 5:33 pmpeter
wait, who used that term? now you have me curious…
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/10/2011 @ 5:45 pmSimon, considering his track record of cut-and-paste from outside sources, any connection between Ken & Kman might be strictly due to subterfuge.
And yes, I was referring to Barbie’s consort. Kman’s plasticity draws the comparison.
Icy Texan (f33932) — 7/11/2011 @ 1:35 amThat is what I thought you meant, Icy. As for the other topic, well, (to repeat myself) bois will be bois.
Simon Jester (6ea1ed) — 7/11/2011 @ 8:39 ambtw, see the update. Ken has taken his ball and gone home. heh.
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 7/11/2011 @ 8:49 amHow funny is that when kmart routinely accuses others of being in an echo chamber, yet when challenged on his idiocy, he shuts down comments. How positively leftist of ken/kmart.
JD (d48c3b) — 7/11/2011 @ 8:53 am“Gee, its almost like as if the guy reflexively disagrees with me or something (besides the point that he is mocking something I didn’t actually say).”
Before it evolved into Progressivism, Liberals actually had a coherent message, one of personal Freedom & Liberty.
Then, they got all caught up in the Politics of Envy, and they had to stick it to …., first there were the Robber Barons, then the evil Arms Merchants, now greedy Corporate Jet Owners.
We used to joke that a Puritan/Calvinist/WASP was someone who lay awake at night worrying that someone, somewhere, was enjoying themselves.
AD-RtR/OS! (53cd3a) — 7/11/2011 @ 9:04 amToday, that perfectly describes the Left, and their Fellow Travellers, who worry that someone, somewhere, is doing something that doesn’t advance the collective;
who has their thermostat set too high in the Winter, and too low in the Summer; who drives an SUV for errands,
regardless that one of those errands is to pick up sheets of building materials to improve/insulate their home;
…the list is endless.
In an earlier time, since these people don’t really lead productive lives, they would have slowly starved to death, or become wards of the local charity.
In today’s world, they get grants to propagate their idiocy upon the “great unwashed” who are then compelled by a Nanny-state to follow their prescriptions of folly.
Aaron,
Re your name being used as a verb.
I was referring to this excerpt from Patterico:
My posts on the subject have achieved “feature story” status on that site and right now “Patterico Worthing Stengel” gets over 8,000 results on google.
peter (37780f) — 7/11/2011 @ 12:32 pmAaron,
I thought that was the title of someone’s blog post. Now I see it’s just a string of key words.
But I will use it as a verb for now on. Here’s my definition:
“Worthinged” – When a pseudo-intellectual who is used to having his opinions validated by other pseudo-intellectuals has his opinion invalidated by a real intellectual.
peter (37780f) — 7/11/2011 @ 12:34 pmPeter
lol i approve of that definition.
Wait, i am the real intellectual in that, right? ah crap…
Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 7/11/2011 @ 12:35 pmDefine “real”!
AD-RtR/OS! (53cd3a) — 7/11/2011 @ 12:43 pmbtw, check out the update. he tries to explain why he shut down debate.
Damn if that ain’t funny. And ironic.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/11/2011 @ 4:51 pmECHO CHAMBER !!!!
JD (85b089) — 7/11/2011 @ 5:05 pmIn a manner of speaking, JD.
Simon Jester (1d2f37) — 7/11/2011 @ 5:16 pmLol, I’m reminded of that line from the Princess Bride ‘that word you are using, doesn’t mean what
ian cormac (d380ce) — 7/11/2011 @ 5:31 pmyou think it does’ also Python’s the Argument Clinic.
How many times has kmart wailed about this being an echo chamber when he actively maintains just that at his own site? Mendoucheous hypocrite, they name is kmart/ashford.
JD (d48c3b) — 7/11/2011 @ 5:40 pmi told ashford ahead of time i would be pantsing him.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 7/11/2011 @ 7:41 pmIs that why he wrote about you “showing your ass” on that blog? Projection?
Simon Jester (1d2f37) — 7/11/2011 @ 9:20 pmThe problem with treating the budget/continuing resolution as invalid is that then the president can’t spend any money at all, even for purposes that are constitutionally mandated. Which is obviously not acceptable to anybody.
When it comes right down to it, when you’re confronted with a choice between doing something illegal or refraining from doing something mandatory, doing nothing is the correct resolution. Any duty imposed on a person by law always has an implied exception for force majeure; necessity is usually a defense against most legal prohibitions, but it’s much narrower and there are exceptions. So if the law both requires the President to spend money and forbids him from borrowing for that purpose, and he can’t raise the money by selling assets, then he has no choice but to sit on his hands.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/11/2011 @ 10:13 pm