Time Shreds/Explains the Constitution (and Commits 13 Factual Errors In Doing So)

From Ace of Spades:

I wrote about Time's embarrassing "Let us smartie-smarts explain the Constitution to you dum-dums" earlier. But I criticized it broadly, on basic misunderstanding of the document, focusing on the first four paragraphs, and I did so for three reasons:

1. I could see the basic broad-stroke error the writer was making in just the first four paragraphs.

2. Ummm... I only actually read the first four paragraphs.

3. Life is too short for stupid.

See, what I thought is that this guy was going to launch into the Standard Liberal Law Professor claim about a "living document." That's, what's the right word?, completely made up, but at least it was made up 30 years ago, so this bit of bullshit is at least graced by the decades.

How wrong I was.

Aaron Worthing did not stop there, and kept reading, discovered to his horror/to his humor (related emotions, those), that this guy, who was apparently the head of the National Constitution Center for a couple of years, knew practically nothing at all about the Constitution.

The more he read, the more flagrant errors he found. Not even the broad-strokes difference in idea about interpretation I went on about -- No, he found this "Richard Stengel" simply making errors, factual errors, about what the document says and the history of its writing, left and right.

Again: Not differences of opinion. Errors of fact.

 Click here to read the rest.