He does not precisely endorse the view that the Constitution is not binding. If he believes, as he apparently does, that the language fails to tolerably tell office holders what to do and what not to do, why should state legislators be bound by 9th circuit opinions which make reference to the Constitution?

See Iowahawk's comment; he obtained Ezra Klein's job application to be WaPo blogger. https://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/12/the-constitution-is-very-important.html

Oh, I don't know ... it seems the Constitution is binding with respect to the "right to privacy," "separation of church and state," and the expansive use of the Commerce Clause.

So, once again, Klein and other liberals are cherry picking.

Plus, I would add -- the Constitution, in present form or any form, or any document, will never provide complete guidance on all things for all time.

I challenge Klein to write his own version of the Constitution and subject it to public scrutiny. It will fail that test. At best such documents can provide a framework of guidance. Specific resolution of every issue is simply impossible.

And I bet that during the Bush Administration Ezra Klein was screaming that Bush and his cohorts were shredding the Constitution on a daily--if not hourly--basis. Funny how things work like that.

What inane babble. I wouldn't even expect this kind of answer from a freshman in most serious colleges.

Look you can get a decent angus bacon cheeseburger from McDonalds in about 3 minutes, but these so called jokers who say things in short compact sentences for a living, require some sort of additional context.

When he said it was a gimmick he was refering to reading it aloud.

When he said it did not bind he was talking of the idea of legistlative history, or the requirement that a bill make specific reference to the part of the constitution that supports it. It is true that legistlative history is not binding. Some federal judges give it more weight others give it less weight.

Its also tolerably accurate to say that it does not bind because it cannot be understood. This is actually more or less the opinion of Scalia. The more sources a court can consult in deciding how to interpret a statute, the more likely the interpretation reflects the policy judgments of the judges and not that of the political branches.

Technically I think the interview by Klein was horrible, it was murky language which was salted by context...thus forcing blogging judges like myself to divine the hidden meaning of his fast food legal commentary.

My interpretation is the only one that makes sense. All other interpretations simply result in absurdity?