On June 23, 2011, Time magazine published an essay entitled “One Document, Under Siege” (one page version, here) by Richard Stengel. I consider the publication of this article to be nothing less than a scandal. Besides the deep philosophical disagreements I have with Mr. Stengel, the piece simply fails as journalism. As I will demonstrate in this post, there were fourteen objectively verifiable errors in Mr. Stengel’s piece, half of which could have been discovered simply by reading the Constitution itself.
I will lay out all of the false claims and evidence in a moment, but let me preview the most egregious error in the article, when Mr. Stengel wrote this:
If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.
As one commenter wrote: “I had to read it twice to believe my eyes. Time really did say this.” And while I will prove definitively in a moment that he is wrong, I suspect every single person reading this knows it already.
The fact that this and thirteen other egregious errors appeared in Time at all is bad enough. But further, it was a cover story:
And look at the top left corner. This is their history issue.
It is also scandalous because of who wrote the piece. The author is not only the Managing Editor for Time, but he spent two years as President and CEO of the National Constitution Center. And even today, he works with the National Constitution Center’s Peter Jennings Project for Journalists and the Constitution, whose stated mission is “to help both professional journalists and students interested in journalism understand constitutional issues more deeply.” That is right. He is there to help journalists understand the Constitution better.
So I will present to you fourteen clear errors Mr. Stengel has made in his article, starting with the most egregious errors. Here are the fourteen errors, in short:
- The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.
- The Constitution is not law.
- The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment emancipated the slaves.
- The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African Americans.
- The original Constitution declared that black people were to be counted as three-fifths of a person.
- The original, unamended Constitution prohibited women from voting.
- The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to tax individuals based on whether they buy a product or service.
- Inter arma enim silent leges translates as “in time of war, the Constitution is silent.”
- The War Powers Act allows the president to unilaterally wage war for sixty days.
- We have only declared war five times.
- Alexander Hamilton wanted a king for America.
- Social Security is a debt within the meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Naturalization depends on your birth.
- The Obamacare mandate is a tax.
When I am done with this post, I am going to make a bleg where I ask you to try to help get out the word about this egregiously incorrect cover story. So stay tuned to the end (or jump ahead if you feel like it).
But first here, point-by-point, is proof that each one of those claims are incorrect.
False Claim #1: The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.
The relevant passage:
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.)
Proof that he is wrong: The Constitution is filled with limitations on Federal Power. For instance, Article I, Section 9 says:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. [A.W.: They’re talking about the slave trade.]
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another….
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States[.]
And then there is Article III, Section 3, limiting what the government can do to a traitor:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Corruption of Blood is a doctrine by which the family of a traitor would suffer because of his or her alleged corrupted blood, so this is limiting the government’s ability to punish the children of a traitor for his or her treason.
And then there is the Bill of Rights. As I noted in a previous piece, Mr. Stengel considered them as of a piece with the original Constitution, an interpretation I concurred with. Every single one of them represents a limitation on federal power, so it is sufficient to only quote a few of them:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
….
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10
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.
So contrary to his suggestion, the Constitution does indeed limit the power of the Federal Government, a point most of us learned in elementary school.
False Claim #2: The Constitution is not law.
The relevant passage:
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.
(emphasis added)
Proof that he is wrong: Again, the Constitution itself contradicts this claim. Article VI, Paragraph 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land[.]
And at Patterico’s Pontifications I cite several passages from Marbury v. Madison that is on point as well, but the Constitution is enough.
False Claim #3: The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment emancipated the slaves.
The relevant passage:
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)
Proof that he is wrong: The amendment that emancipated the slaves was the thirteenth. (Duh.)
And notice also that he is conflating slaves and black people. Not all black people were slaves prior to the Civil War. This is a running problem with him as we will see in False Claim #5.
False Claim #4: The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African Americans.
The relevant passage: Eagle-eyed readers might have seen that falsehood in the last quoted passage from Stengel. So here we go again:
The 14th Amendment reversed that. 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)
Proof that he is wrong: The Fourteenth Amendment did not end the exclusion of African Americans from the franchise. In fact, it specifically allowed for the exclusion to continue, although with a penalty. From the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2:
[W]hen the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
It’s dense language, but if you work through it you realize that it is saying that if you deny men over the age of 21, etc. the vote, then you have to reduce the state’s representation accordingly. Furthermore, it is simply a fallacy to suggest (as Stengel apparently believes) that all citizens automatically vote. An American-born child is a citizen, but cannot vote until he or she reaches a certain age. And in 1868, when this amendment was ratified, women were not generally allowed to vote, and yet they were citizens.
Racial discrimination in the franchise was not outlawed until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870.
False Claim #5: The original Constitution declared that black people were to be counted as three-fifths of a person.
The relevant 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...
(emphasis added)
Proof that he is wrong: In fact, the infamous (and now inoperable) three-fifth clause did not declare that black people were to be counted as three-fifths, but rather slaves were to be counted that way. Here’s the relevant portion of the Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
And notice how the slaves are mentioned in this very indirect way, calling them simply “other Persons.” Other than what? Other than free people, other than indentured servants, and other than Indians who were not taxed. So only by process of elimination do you realize they were talking about slaves.
And no, not every black person living in that time were slaves. And of course there is a deeper historical ignorance that this goes to. Stengel appears to believe this provision dehumanized the slaves by counting them as only three fifth of a person, when in fact the true outrage was that they were counted at all when calculating representation (see this post for a fuller explanation). But I am sticking to easily verifiable inaccuracies.
False Claim #6: That the original, unamended Constitution prohibited women from voting.
The relevant passage: That is right, it’s another two-fer, where he had two errors in the same 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[.]
(emphasis added)
Proof that he is wrong: Now, this time I can’t point to a specific clause of the Constitution because we are proving a negative. So instead I ask you to look at the original Constitution, before the Nineteenth Amendment was added, and ask yourself if there is a single word that prohibited women from voting. It isn’t there.
Now, Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for gender discrimination in voting without any penalty in representation. But there is a world of difference between allowing something to be prohibited, and prohibiting it. Simply put, the Constitution did not say what he claimed it did.
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. And numerous other states allowed women to vote prior to ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment outlawing gender discrimination in the franchise. Thus the founders themselves demonstrated that they did not believe that the Constitution prohibited women from voting.
False Claim #7: The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to tax individuals based on whether they buy a product or service.
The relevant passage:
What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress’s authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it’s difficult to know what he would say.
Proof that he is wrong: For this I have to give full credit to Rob Natelson of the Independence Institute. That is right, there are so many things wrong with this piece, I missed one. As he points out, taxes are authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which states that “[t]he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes” and by the Sixteenth Amendment (providing for an income tax). The Commerce cause, is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
Further, if the Obamacare mandate was found to be a tax “based” on the commerce (a dubious concept), it would be unconstitutional. The original Constitution contained two rules for direct taxes—that is, taxes placed on an individual. The first rule appears, in Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3, where the constitution says that “direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States.” That means that Uncle Sam was not allowed to draw the taxes from you directly, but instead they had to send the bill to your state, and your state would have to decide how to pay that debt. That meant that the states could pay your share of federal taxes by any means they chose, including forcing someone else to pay your share.
The second rule appears in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4:
No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
That meant that the taxes had to be distributed according to population and not any other factor (such as whether you own health insurance). So, because this mandate is 1) imposed on you as an individual and not only your state, and 2) is not in strict proportion to the population of our state, if it was a tax, it would be unconstitutional under the original, unamended Constitution.
The only way to tax you directly, and without ensuring that it is in proportion to the population of your state is through the Sixteenth Amendment, not the original Constitution. That amendment says:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
(emphasis added.) As you can see, the only reason why the Federal Government is allowed to 1) tax you directly for your income, and 2) vary the amount taxed according to factors such as the amount of income, whether you are paying a mortgage, etc., is because the Sixteenth Amendment specifically authorizes it, abrogating those specific limitations on the federal power of taxation. Therefore the mandate, if seen as a tax, can only be Constitutional if it is seen as a tax on income, and not commerce (or in this case, the failure to engage in commerce). If it is seen as a tax on commerce, it will be struck down.
False Claim #8: Inter arma enim silent leges translates as “in time of war, the Constitution is silent.”
The relevant passage:
There is an old Latin phrase, inter arma enim silent leges, which roughly translates as “in time of war, the Constitution is silent.” But it’s not just in times of war that the Constitution is silent.
Proof that he is wrong: Ask any lawyer or expert in Latin. This is one of many citations that state what I know off the top of my head. What it says is: “in times of war, the laws are silent.” Laws, not the Constitution. The Romans didn’t talk about the Constitution, because they had none to talk about. They only had laws.
I suppose you could stretch the word “laws” to include the Constitution, as one of our laws. That is indeed what people mean when they suggest applying this doctrine in America. But see False Claim #2: he doesn’t think the Constitution is law.
False Claim #9: The War Powers Act allows the president to unilaterally wage war for sixty days.
The relevant passage: There is no one passage, but if you read the section on Libya, he never indicates once that he understands what the War Powers Act actually says. For instance, he writes here:
May 20 marked the 60th day since President Obama launched military action in Libya. Speaker of the House John Boehner has asserted that the President is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, which requires the President to withdraw U.S. forces from armed hostilities if Congress has not given its approval within 60 days.
Proof that he is wrong: Contrary to what he seems to believe, the War Powers Act states that the President may not introduce our forces into hostilities except if authorized by Congress (broadly speaking), or if we are attacked. From the statute:
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
So as you can see the President is not given a blank check to enter into hostilities, but only if given permission by Congress or in defense. The famous sixty and ninety day deadlines apply solely to the defense justification. Therefore the War in Libya violated the war powers act on day one (unless you believe the President’s ridiculous claim that bombing tanks is not hostilities). And if Stengel knows it violated this law from the get-go, he gives no indication.
False Claim #10: We have only declared war five times.
The relevant passage:
Since the signing of the Constitution in 1787, Congress has declared war exactly five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War and World Wars I and II.
Proof that he is wrong: The problem here is that he doesn’t understand what the Declaration of War Clause means in the Constitution. It is not simply conferring to Congress the power to write a piece of paper called a “Declaration of War.” The Constitution is concerned with substance, and not form. The substance of the power “to declare War” (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 10), is the power to authorize the President use the powers of war. Therefore, any authorization will be sufficient.
For instance, in Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1973), challenging the legality of the Vietnam war, the court wrote:
But the aforesaid question invites inquiry as to whether Congress has given, in a Constitutionally satisfactory form, the approval requisite for a war of considerable duration and magnitude. Originally Congress gave what may be argued to have been its approval by the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution[.]… However, that resolution cannot serve as justification for the indefinite continuance of the war since it was repealed by subsequent Congressional action…. Apparently recognizing that point, the Government contends that Congressional approval has been given by appropriation acts, by extension of the Selective Service and Training Act, and by other measures.
We are unanimously agreed that it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to use another means than a formal declaration of war to give its approval to a war such as is involved in the protracted and substantial hostilities in Indo-China.
So in fact there have been many more declarations of war than the five times we have used a piece of paper entitled a “declaration of war.” Recent examples included the authorization for military force issued in relation to the War in Iraq and the War on Terror generally.
False Claim #11: Alexander Hamilton wanted a king for America.
The relevant passage:
Alexander Hamilton wondered whether Washington should be a king.
Proof that he is wrong:
In fact, Hamilton said no such thing. The closest he came to saying that was in suggesting that our Constitution include a lifetime appointment for the Presidency, at least according to Madison’s notes of the convention, Hamilton saying:
Let one branch of the Legislature hold their places for life or at least during good behaviour. Let the Executive also be for life. He appealed to the feelings of the members present whether a term of seven years, would induce the sacrifices of private affairs which an acceptance of public trust would require, so as to ensure the services of the best Citizens. On this plan we should have in the Senate a permanent will, a weighty interest, which would answer essential purposes. But is this a Republican Govt., it will be asked? Yes if all the Magistrates are appointed, and vacancies are filled, by the people, or a process of election originating with the people.
It would be fair to say his vision of the executive was too close to a monarchy model for our tastes (and I would agree). You might even call what he proposed an “elective monarch.” But it is simply wrong to suggest that he wanted to make anyone a king without at least noting he wanted that person to be elected.
False Claim #12: Social Security is a debt within the meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The relevant passage:
But the idea that we can default on our debt is not only reckless; it’s probably unconstitutional. No one is saying the debt is wise and prudent — far from it — but defaulting on it flies in the face of one of the few absolute proscriptions in the Constitution, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment: “The validity of the public debt … shall not be questioned.” The idea is that the U.S. shouldn’t weasel out of its debts. It does not say that we can’t undertake dumb obligations — the Constitution can’t prevent bridges to nowhere — but that we need to pay off the public obligations that we do set for ourselves, whether those are Social Security payments to retirees or interest to Chinese bankers.
(emphasis added)
Proof that he is wrong: Social security is not a legal debt. Morally, you might feel “we owe them” and you might be right, but there is no bond in their hands, no promissory note. It is simply a benefit paid to some Americans based on taxes collected from other Americans. As such, it is no different from a number of entitlements, which can frankly be modified or repealed the moment we find the political will to do so (which is the trick, isn’t it?), as we did with Welfare in the 1990’s.
This isn’t just my opinion, but also that of the Supreme Court, which in denying that a person had a property right in their social security benefits, pointed out that “the original Act contained a clause, still in force, that expressly reserves to Congress [t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision’ of the Act.” Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603 (1960). That law they cite is still in the United States Code.
False Claim #13: Naturalization depends on your birth.
The relevant passage:
All around the world, there are basically three ways of acquiring citizenship: by birth, by blood or by naturalization. All of them depend on the circumstances of one’s birth.
Proof that he is wrong: While it is correct to say that gaining citizenship by being born here, or by being born of Americans abroad, is gaining citizenship because of the circumstances of one’s birth, naturalization has nothing to do with birth. Any person born anywhere in the world of anyone’s parents who is not a citizen can come to America and become a citizen. Of course it is a colossal pain to do it, but it can be done and it is about your tolerance for red tape rather than your birth.
False Claim #14: The Obamacare mandate is a tax.
The relevant passage:
Supporters of Obamacare note that it’s not a mandate but, in effect, a tax, imposed on people who do not buy health insurance.
Proof that he is wrong: Now, first, I admit that the passage is ambiguous as to whether he believes it is a tax. This is true in his entire section discussing Obamacare. But at the very least, it seems like it would have been a good time to mention that it is not a tax, right?
And this isn’t just my opinion that this is a penalty under the commerce clause, and not a tax. Literally not a single court in America has found the mandate to be a tax. That is, even when upholding the law, the courts have refused to call it a tax. That even includes the today’s decision in the Sixth Circuit.
And bluntly, the basic principles of statutory interpretation lead us to that conclusion. To borrow Stengel’s phraseology, if the mandate was intended to be a tax, the law sure doesn’t say so. In the Florida Obamacare case, Judge Vinson wrote a separate opinion discussing whether the penalty was rightfully considered a tax and I summed up his findings at the time as follows:
- The act called it a penalty, not a tax.
- Earlier versions of this law, and similar proposals called it a tax. So as they went through their drafts, they changed the word “tax” to “penalty.”
- The law enacts a number of taxes and labels them as taxes, but not this alleged “tax.” This is an example of expressio unius, a concept I explain here.
- The findings of fact (in the statute) invoked Congress’ power under the commerce clause, but not the taxing power [in relation to the mandate]. Meanwhile the taxes in the act were justified under the taxing power.
- When the CBO ran its cost estimates, tallying how much the law would cost versus how much revenue it would raise, it didn’t include any money from the mandate. In other words, the CBO acted as though the mandate would raise absolutely no revenue at all.
- “[T]he Act lists seventeen ‘Revenue Offset Provisions’… and … it further includes a section entitled ‘Provisions Relating to Revenue’…. However, the individual mandate penalty is not listed anywhere in them.”
Thus when you put all of that together, the evidence is overwhelming that it is not a tax, but a penalty.
——————————–
How You Can Help.
So, there you have it, fourteen glaring factual errors, listed with the most egregious errors first. I consider it no less than a scandal that so many clear, egregious errors was allowed in a cover story. It is all the more shocking because very often the falsity of the claims could have been verified by simply reading the Constitution. This is inexcusable for a publication of Time’s stature.
So if you agree with me, that this is scandalously bad, let me suggest that you guys try to help me raise awareness of the issue. For instance, you can go to the article and fill the comments with a version of my list:
14 Objectively false statements in Stengel’s Article on the Constitution.
- The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.
- The Constitution is not law.
- The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment emancipated the slaves.
- The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African Americans.
- The original Constitution declared that black people were to be counted as three-fifths of a person.
- That the original, unamended Constitution prohibited women from voting.
- The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to tax individuals based on whether they buy a product or service.
- Inter arma enim silent leges translates as “in time of war, the Constitution is silent.”
- The War Powers Act allows the president to unilaterally wage war for sixty days.
- We have only declared war five times.
- Alexander Hamilton wanted a king for America.
- Social Security is a debt within the meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Naturalization depends on your birth.
- The Obamacare mandate is a tax.
Positively spam them until they have to pay attention. Or you could even go to where I left a substantially similar comment and “like” that comment, raising its prominence. If a comment is liked enough times they might be more likely to pay attention. Or you can email the “editor,” (I’m not sure which editor we are talking about) here.
In all communications, be polite, and stick to the facts, so they cannot dismiss you as a kook.
And you might spread this message to other sites. I am deliberately trying to create enough of an outcry so that they at least have to issue the mother of all corrections. Indeed, I believe that someone should be fired over this. They are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
So please, help me with this.
————————————–
This piece was significantly based on a piece I posted at Patterico’s Pontifications (it was thirteen errors, back then). You can read the original, here, as well as the email I sent to the editor.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
63 Comments
Well done sir.
Excellent dissection.
But doing battle with Time is really no different than taking on the supermarket tabloid in order to prove that the 3 headed alien wasn't born to a woman in South Dakota. Since they generally have the same readership, you're not going to change their minds.
The Constitution protects Time magazine's right to print lies.
Well I don't think this is exactly what you're talking about, but it took me about 5 seconds to ascertain the ignorance of the author.
"Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches…"
Ah … Mr. Stengel sir, leeches are still used by some of the most prestigious medical centers around the world to save life and limb.
Just thought you ought to know.
I feel like you're overreaching on #13. He's wrong because it's Blood, SOIL, or naturalization. Blood (Jus sanguinis, think France); Soil (Jus Soli — We have this here in the United States); or Naturalization.
Reading Time magazine will rot your brain.
Time magazine is for Communists.
Falsehoods are not protected speech.
'tis why one cannot yell Fire in a crowed theater, unless there actually is a fire.
Liberals hate the constitution. When they see or read anything that says we have Freedom, they cant handle it.
This is a very good article (not the one by TIME) and is well reasoned and supported. But, the issue really is: does the Constitution still matter? It does to me. A government of limited powers is in my opinion a very, very good thing. A country of laws and not men is in my opinion a very, very good thing. A country of opposing power centers (President, Congress, Court, States, Citizens) is in my opinion a very, very good thing. A country that supports the Rights of Man is in my opinion a very, very good thing. Yes, even a Country where its "Journalists" are idiots is in my opinion a very, very good thing.
"but [the Founders] also gave us the idea that … women were not allowed to vote"
I would argue that it was old Britain that gave us that idea.
Maybe all those Sarah Palin email readers can help you out!
The Time article is absolutely ridiculous. I had my 12 year old daughter read this article. She rolled her eyes when she read the part about the Constitution not limiting government, and she actually started laughing when she got to the part about the Constitution not being the law. (She didn't even have to read the explanation to know why it was wrong.) After that she gave up and went back to her room shaking her head. If my daughter knows enough about the issue to find Time's article absurd, how did it ever get published?
Here, Here. Thank you for your time and diligence. Please continue to SHOUT the truth from every corner. I will do what I can.
The only people who would argue that the Constitution doesn't limit the gov't are people who actually think the gov't needs more power, that is, people who support authoritarianism. Stengel is a radical leftist. The fact that he claims the Constitution doesn't limit the gov't and tops it off with the snarky statement "Limited government indeed." proves this.
That TIME or the National Constitution Center would employ someone who clearly doesn't understand the purpose and meaning of the Constitution as some kind of expert on it is unacceptable.
Like most of the Main Stream Media outlets, Time Magazine has gone over to the dark side. They no longer resemble the news magazine that they once were. They are now a propaganda outlet. Recognize them for what they are and label them accordingly. Expect no journalistic integrity.
Just the fact that TIME ran this along with Fareed 'My GPS is broken' Zakaria start talking about devolving the constitution illustrates the total disdain this group has for this document. The fact that the Left HATES the constitution because it LIMITS their powers to run rough shot over the citizenry is pretty self evident it is a document of negative liberties.
The 2nd Amendment is another prime example of a limiting power of the government to eliminate the citizenry's right to bear arms. If the constitution did not limit the gov't here we would not be able to own guns.
The Commerce Clause is a total CF of the constitution because it EXPANDS the scope of what the government can regulate in terms of commerce [healthcare]. Without this abhorrent amendment, Obamacare and a multitude of other government free market limiters IE farming subsidies etc. wouldn't exist. BTW, the left is the party of the "people" correct? If that is the case and they fight for the elimination of poverty, albeit more globally than domestically, wouldn't it make sense to allow the farmers to produce so that we can access the full potential of the US farming industry to assist in the fight of poverty? Farming subsidies do not give an incentive to do so.
The Left is on record saying they will go through the courts to invoke their agenda. As that is the case, why would one subvert the Constitution if it wasn't truly a document of limiting government/negative liberties?
Another point – the Constitution was not written in "secret". It was written in closed session, which means the proceedings during the actual debate and drafting were not public. However, the various members of the Constitutional Convention could – and DID – communicate what was contemplated as being included in the Constitution to other representatives and the public in general WELL BEFORE THE CONVENTION WAS HELD. (See http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html)
One final point: the Constitution was written in 1787, but not ratified by the requisite 9 states until 1788, well after having been presented and debated by the representatives of the several states.
This Stengel sumbitch wouldn't know the Constitution from constipation.
I can give you a very strong argument that 'feminism' has been a VERY strong partner in the demise of our families and social fabric.
Well done. You should have pointed him to the Federalist Papers for his fact checking.
Thanks for exposing TIME's malpractice. Hopefully, its readership will go down some more.
Lies are protected speech if not slanderous, libelous or may be imminently injurious, or found to be treasonous, and even then the threshold is high to successfully prosecute.
Just in March this year, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski*, in a case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (yeah I know) wrote, “Without the robust protections of the First Amendment, the white lies, exaggerations and deceptions that are an integral part of human intercourse would become targets of censorship".
That case was in regards to a man's claims of military service and being awarded the Medal of Honor.
If all lies or falsehoods were against the law, our courts would be overloaded to the point of collapse, and citizens could be bankrupted by others or government. Anyone at any time (truthful or not) could find themselves subpoenaed to appear before the 'Court of Truth'.
*[Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in an interview with The Times (2008) that he had posted the materials, which included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as "funny."]
LIke Thomas Sowell pointed out…. Truth is optional for so many in today's society. TIME has lost their relevance and no longer contributes to the national dialogue. They're just killing trees with their worthless rag.
Womens' ineligibility to vote was the status quo, the Constitution paved the way for women's suffrage.
Well done. Two responses:
1. How can Stengel be regarded by anyone as an expert on something so important and yet demonstrate that he is so ignorant on so many basic points. He is merely an expert in his own imagination of what he may wish that the Constitution says and apparently a host of his fellows either know no better or endorse his fantasy.
2. Why would anyone read Time magazine and more importantly, why would anyone advertise in it?
Its so sad when our national magazines read like an eight graders' term paper, put together the night before it is due.
This is the real tragedy in America, the intellectual level of our national dialogue.
Journalism: the first rewrite of history. This ridiculous garbage is now up for reference citing in the hallowed halls of ivy league education.
Lies can also be perjurious, which is a crime.
The case you cite is going to be overturned on appeal.
We fought for years to make it a crime to fraudulently claim Military Service, The Nations Military Service Members and Military Veterans will not let this go.
We believe that no one has any right in law to claim past Military Service except Military Veterans, unless one also has the same right in law to fraudulently claim to be a Police Officer, FBI Agent, or even a Member of Congress.
Legally such falls under Equal Protection of the Laws.
Furthermore, unlike the Police and Members of Congress, the Constitution places Military Service Members in a separate class of human being all together.
As for the Medal of Honor, claiming the award can fall under theft of services as well as fraud.
The Medal of Honor entitles the recipient to very specific benefits and allotments.
Does The Constitution still matter?
DAMN RIGHT, it still does. The fact that The Press itself is assaulting our liberties makes Our Founding Document more relevant than ever.
To hell with "Time".
Seems like everyone is misreading the question. Maybe the question was Time Magazine, does IT still matter. The answer is of course NO !
Your daughter has good parents!
For what it is worth, this is a good topic on this thread.
Personally, I would like to see more like this one.
Thank you! The truth is, she likes history, and learns a lot on her own. I'm proud of her.
I second that. Our so-called watchdog media is a bunch of jackyls.
Time, Newsweek….who the hell reads those tabloids. Maybe, in the first half of the last century. B.T.W. seems as time goes by… they get thinner and thinner. Remember Life magazine what was the other one? Oh yeah, Look magazine.Anyway… Time, Newsweek I dont know when, now just left wing propaganda.
Yep, that was my point
So Time hires first graders to write for them. That must explain why their sales are down. How else do you explain the writer thinking the constitution isn't law. If it isn't law why is Obama President right. What's keeping him in power today.
It's that constitution thing which is law.
Obviously every word of the story is wrong if the writer put in it isn't law.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Another one for the Slime-Lies toilet paper collection. The paper's kinda slick for that though, so my personal copy tends to never get bought.
Did it ever matter?
I too was surprised by some of what I read in the Time piece. I guess I still held on to some kind of hope that making claims as bizarre as saying that the Constitution does not limit the federal government would require much more of a logical basis than Stengel apparently felt necessarily- especially in a cover story. Here is a part I found particularly strange:
"Nor are we in danger of flipping the Constitution on its head, as some of the Tea Party faithful contend. Their view of the founding documents was pretty well summarized by Texas Congressman Ron Paul back in 2008: 'The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose — to restrain the federal government.' Well, not exactly. In fact, the framers did the precise opposite. They strengthened the center and weakened the states. The states had extraordinary power under the Articles of Confederation. Most of them had their own navies and their own currencies. 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."
Stengel here presents an illogically false dichotomy between the act of outlining the roles of central government and explicitly limiting that government. He gives no explanation to his implication that any document that grants a permission to the federal government cannot simultaneously limit the federal government, or exist primarily for the purpose of restraining the federal government. This would be the equivalent of saying that the DMV handbook of traffic laws does not limit the way people must drive since it also grants people permission to drive under those limitations.
History to the left is whatever they say it is. The left has so twisted and perverted the meaning of what history is that you can't believe much of anything you read anymore. To learn history correctly anymore, you need to ignore the MSM and just about all of the educational textbooks written after 1970.
I still vividly remember having an old history book from the 50's that I compared to the history book I had to use in high school in my final year in 82. It was like comparing apples to oranges. In the 90's I compared that same 50's era history book to what my oldest daughter had to use in school and the comparison was like comparing apples to aluminum siding with how slanted to the left the 90's era book was. Luckily my youngest daughters are home schooled so I don't have to go through the garbage of deprogramming them from the left's false history.
Fourteen mistakes? I doubt it. I'd lean towards fourteen intentional lies, placed in a formerly-bigtime national news magazine as its cover story for its Tenth Anniversary History Issue, by an author who, simply looking at his resume, undoubtedly has more knowledge of our Constitution than the average person.
Here's why I think they did this:
The Dems have always profited greatly from The Big Lie. They've learned that, if you can hold your nose and subsume all of your ethics and simply repeat, over and over and over, through all of your outlets and talkers and writers and lunatics, complete bald-faced fabrications that help your party, a certain significant percentage of the American citizenry will come to hold those lies as the truth, no matter how often others attempt to refute your lie.
Remember "Bush lied". Well, no, he didn't lie – even Bill Clinton came out and said he didn't lie – but huge numbers of people, from all parties and philosophies, now sincerely believe that Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. It's become a cultural truth of sorts.
Remember "Bush stole the election along with the Supreme Court." Well, no, he didn't – First, it was Gore who took it to court to try and reverse the first count, and, after all was over and the ballots were actually counted, Bush had more votes. But you'll hear this as a statement of faith from millions of people, because it's been parroted so many times.
Remember "Bush is stupid." Well, again, no. Bush had an Undergraduate and Master’s Degree from Yale, and his college-reported IQ, IIRC, was higher than John Kerry's. But the lie remains.
How about "Fox is biased, ABC/NBC/CBS/PBS are neutral"? I'll just leave that one there without explanation – I think y'all will understand what I mean.
So, I'm seeing this as the first shot in the Dems' war to get that dang pesky interfering-with-all-of-their-really-good-plans Constitution marginalized and ignored and ridiculed.
Because imagine all of the Hope and Change Baraq could accomplish if he wasn't unfairly and stupidly constrained by that old, out-of-date list of rules from the big white guys of 200 years ago!
predictable drivel from a leftist stool-sample such as stengel and an agitprop rag such as time
Does anyone still read this propaganda rag?
Only in the waiting room.
Thank you Thank you Thank you so much for writing this.
"If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so."
just off the top of my head, without consulting my copy, it seems the Bill of Rights is virtually nothing but a list of limitations on the federal govt, and any 6th grade civics student (in a decent private school or home-schooled, anyway) would know that.
also note the utter lack of trolls daring to weigh in on this…
"Mark Halperin, editor-at-large for Time, called President Obama “a dick” on Thursday on a popular MSNBC morning show and then quickly apologized."—Politico
The only bit of truth that has come from Time editor Halperin and he apologizes for it.
It is "Time" that no longer matters — how could this person claim to be an educator on the constitution and opine that it does not limit federal power? One limitation that I like to point out to army officers is that it limits the length of any measure to fund an army, but the power to raise and maintain a navy does not have the limitation specified.
When I read comments like this, I realize just how much hope there is for us. Good job raising your daughter.
For something to be forbidden by a law, it would have to be assumed it would be allowed in absence of the law. Likewise, for something to be allowed by the law, it would have to be assumed it would be forbidden in absence of the law. In which bizarre universe is the latter less restrictive than the former? It's not just a false dichotomy, it's a difference without distinction.
Apparently speaking truth to that Times editor's presumption of power is not convenient, they've closed down comments on the article. Aaron's critiques were rudely attacked by some commenter using the name David, who disparaged Aaron, not the facts he cited, accusing him of having a bias, and therefore the truths Aaron wrote should have no merit. The close mindedness and contempt of the left is an insult to all freedom loving people.
It has become apparent to me that liberals process information differently than other people. They seem unable to connect the dots and cannot see the forest for the trees. Another characteristic is using insults as their primary form of argument. Understanding the reasoning of the Founding Fathers is simply beyond their ken. A primary red flag is not getting the purpose behind the 3/5th Compromise. This was an ANTI-slavery decision. It reduced the power of the slave states and rewarded freeing slaves to gain power in Congress. Better it had been the 1/5th Compromise, but to count slaves as "whole" persons would have rewarded the increase of slavery. Simple to understand, unless you're a liberal.
So is Mr. Stengel now working on the reduced NEWSPEAK Dictionary? 1984 Orwellian Progg!
Actually, in the two sentences related to No. 13, if Time had left the second sentence off, they'd have been effectively correct – and not contradicted the immediately preceding statement in the bargain.
Thank you, DMY. I consider that the future of our country isn't going to be all that bad if a 12 year old girl is THAT on the ball. I hope to get my son in the same boat.
But still, not all falsehoods are unprotected. As you suggest it certainly is the case with fraud and slander and libel.
I'm sure there are a lot like us out there. We just don't hear about it other than the occasional reference to "crazy right wingers teaching their children to hate…" I do believe that our children listen to us – that we have the ability to steer them in the right direction. We've always watched the news and discussed the issues around and with her. I'm sure your son will be just as informed.
freemindsmarket, yes, there is hope for the next generation!
A little more meat on the bone.
Squeaking wheel?
I agree with you that this ruling should be overturned. Nobody should be allowed to falsley claim military service or military awards of honor. What is particularly egregious about the ruling I cited is that it's in regards to claims by someone running for public office, and decided by (my opinion) a degenerate wearing a black robe.
However the press has been placed in a special class as well throughout our history.
And the way to fight lies by the press is by the same freedom of speech that is allowed them, not by agents of the government.
One could only hope so.
Freedom of the Press in the Constitution does not mean Journalists. There was no Press Corps back when the Constitution was being drawn up.
Freedom of the Press = Printing Press, which means every Citizen who wanted to use a Printing Press to put out printed material.
Military Service Members are in a special class because the Constitution gives less rights to the Military, not more.
The public has always treated the Military well in the USA. Congress (not counted as the Public here in this Post) had better keep that in mind.
Time sucks.
Indeed. Medical Leeches and medical maggots are both regulated by the FDA. Stengel is just full of fail. Does he work for the Obama admin? He's qualified for mediamatters. Only 14 factual errors is a warmup there.
This TIME front page gig is nearly as good as my FAVORITE tabloid headline. "Siamese Twin Kills brother because he has bad breath" The irrelevance of these news magazines, turned tabloid, have the same audience, but in a grocery store with SELF Check out lines. The days of Main Stream Media, being our source of information upon which we make our political decisions is long past. The American People are SICK of being told that what we see and what we know "ain't how it really is"….When we know damned well that what we see with our own eyes is EXACTLY how it is.
You must be logged in to post a comment.