Time magazine v Madison

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Windbag, Jul 10, 2011.

  1. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Time magazine recently had a cover story that was one of the sorriest pieces of "reporting" that I have ever read, and I have read some bad stuff in my life. It was written just like the wonky left on this site claims Fox reports news, only from the other side.

    It started off innocently enough, but by the end of the second paragraph it was ready to toss the Constitution out as outmoded and irrelevant. The managing editor, Richard Stengle, clearly has an agenda

    U.S. Constitution Under Siege over Libya, Taxes, Health Care - TIME

    I have to admit that reading this article makes me angry.

    The man has an obvious agenda, and ignores everything that doesn't fit into it.

    For one thing, he ignores that the Federalist papers were written to sell the Constitution to an unwary public that was still dealing with the aftermath of revolution, and saw no real need to change the government they had, even if it was obvious that the Articles of Confederation were not working. Everyone was willing to admit that we needed a strong national government, but no one wanted to see it grow too strong.




    Foster Friess | Time Magazine Says Constitution Allows for Unlimited Government

    You would think that the managing editor of a national news magazine would at least have heard of the Federalist Papers, even if he had never bothered to read them himself. Apparently he was to busy to even assign someone to fact check his story before he inflicted his subscribers to the trash he thinks passes as news.
     
  2. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    His error was more not citing Constitutional case law in support of his general premise, which is correct and precedents abundant, starting with Marbury and McCulloch. He also made an error with regard to:

    “ …but it's unclear what the rights of illegal immigrants are as opposed to those of citizens.”

    No, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the Court ruled that undocumented aliens were entitled to habeas and other due process rights per the 14th Amendment. He could have indeed used someone dong a little legal research.

    Otherwise there is no ‘agenda,’ he accurately outlines the settled law of Federal supremacy. As the Court noted in Helvering v. Davis (1937), upholding the constitutionality of the Social Security Act:

    “The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison…”

    Whether the author has ever read the Federalist Papers is not germane, although a comprehensive understanding of the issues is always desirable. So too have judges and justices been aware of the Federalist Papers and other primary documents from the Foundation Era, and over the last seven decades the majority have elected to rule in favor of the Hamiltonian paradigm.
     
  3. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    WTF? How is that his error? He argued that the founders were ignorant, and that we should ignore the Constitution because we are smarter. The funny thing is that the Federalist Papers actually dealt with the exact specifics he raised.

    Your error is still that you refuse to admit that SCOTUS is not the final say on the Constitution, they are only the final say on the law.
     

Share This Page