New York Times risks spontaneous combustion by printing annotated Constitution alongside editorial pages
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 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:
Actually, no. It’s the law as written that matters in court.
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.”
And just to cap things off handily, also in the issue is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek piece by actor and wit Stephen Fry:
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.
* * *