By the workings of some subconscious mechanisms we’ll never fully understand, we can’t read Christiane Amanpour’s impassioned call last November for the long-dormant media to awaken from its slumber and save the country from “mortal peril” without thinking of the Anne Rice vampire fantasy “Queen of the Damned” … ’cause we’ll be damned if it didn’t work.
The thing is, it’s tough finding your footing back on the job after an eight-year break, so you stumble about a bit trying to look busy and productive. Take, for example, the New York Times, which is following up its comprehensive lists of every person, place, and thing Donald Trump insulted during the campaign and every lie he’s told in office by publishing an annotated Constitution this weekend.
The New York Times will come with a copy of the constitution this weekend pic.twitter.com/btLavEW9mZ
— Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) June 30, 2017
No way!!! Congrats. You found it!!! Only took you 16 years.
— Chief Enforcement of Delayed Reports⛔️ (@BodiazRising) July 1, 2017
https://twitter.com/dull_images/status/881222043953315840
It doesn't need annotations.
— Hacker Holdings LLC ? (@HoldMyGlencairn) July 1, 2017
The HUGE Constitution in today's print edition of the @nytimes, with a Labradoodle (not included) for scale. pic.twitter.com/YaShO7jPcx
— Marc Lacey (@marclacey) July 1, 2017
The Times’ first clue should be that the Constitution fits handily on one printed page; a large part of that is due to the absence of entitlements that have since become to be considered “rights” bestowed by the government. But why the annotations for “the Trump era”? Because people are stupid, duh.
Now obviously we’re aware that newspapers have editorial sections devoted solely to opinion pieces, and that’s their right. It’s funny, though, how those same writers seem so shocked when the Supreme Court interprets the very same text of that very same Constitution. Take President Trump’s travel ban, which was largely upheld after the paper applauded stays by lower courts. Behold:
Recommended
Should the president’s words matter in court? In general, no. In the case of Trump’s travel ban, yes. https://t.co/JAxWiv2ZSJ pic.twitter.com/dsJLewz5OK
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) May 31, 2017
Actually, no. It’s the law as written that matters in court.
President Trump can tweet about his victory on the travel ban all he wants. It doesn't mean he's right. https://t.co/uZ7wzQikin pic.twitter.com/agcUC12pBc
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) June 28, 2017
Trump declares "clear victory" in travel ban case. But “victory” for anyone is far from clear. https://t.co/Ze0ZHEaDeR
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) June 26, 2017
Misguided? Fair enough … but tell that to SCOTUS.
And for all the gun control groups out there that argue the founders never envisioned semi-automatic rifles — maybe grab a copy of the Times and point out the part where the government is given the power to mandate the purchase of health insurance. SCOTUS managed to find that in there, and we remember the Times being pretty jolly when SCOTUS upheld the ACA in a fight over, ahem, “an intentional misreading of four words.”
The Supreme Court ends a preposterous legal claim and makes a powerful defense of Obamacare. http://t.co/AIqVa2FbdS pic.twitter.com/lKZL3gTuCz
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) June 25, 2015
And just to cap things off handily, also in the issue is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek piece by actor and wit Stephen Fry:
Note from across the pond: Maybe the U.S.A. should consider a monarchy after all https://t.co/AFOq5UtJtV
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) July 1, 2017
All of this is a long way of saying 1) the Constitution is readily available without buying Sunday’s “annotated” version, and 2) it wouldn’t hurt for everyone to read it, including the people who decided it needed to be published again.
https://twitter.com/gregmatusow/status/880979294851346432
Trying to get them all out of the building?
— Larry Farlow (@LarryFarlow) June 30, 2017
You'll have to be more clear on what you're talking about.
Most New York Times readers have never heard of "The Constitution" https://t.co/qC56njOK6v— Harry Khachatrian (@Harry1T6) June 30, 2017
I wonder if the editors and writers for The NEW York Times will actually read the Constitution now… https://t.co/5ca08tv7IK
— Harrison James Weeks (@harrisonweeks_) July 1, 2017
Think the editors will read it? Ah hell nah
— ⚡️Erick Brockway⚡️ (@erickbrockway) July 1, 2017
Can you possibly get your staff to read it? It'd be really cool if y'all had even a slight idea what it says.
— Margie Far (@Margie_Far) July 1, 2017
https://twitter.com/Unz76/status/880979081684172800
For some of them it'll be the first time they've seen/ read the thing. If conservatives suggested this you'd have lauded us as extremists…
— Clyfnix (@clyfnix) July 1, 2017
oh good, liberals will see that gun rights and free speech are guaranteed civil rights, finally?
— Olivia Awaken (@olivia_awaken) July 1, 2017
https://twitter.com/PrestonForPar/status/881163091857297408
https://twitter.com/Daniel_R_Ducote/status/881225542875394048
This would have been handy the past 8 years.
— Right-Wing Uncle Tony Hrvatska ?? (@tonybalogna) July 1, 2017
* * *
Related:
Wow: President Obama admits he's 'constrained' by Constitution at gun roundtable http://t.co/TljKm1iXyx
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 3, 2013
Join the conversation as a VIP Member