It's not an American Constitution. It's the United States Constitution. Documents like all things require the opinion of the reader. Everyone has one and they're almost invariably different from the other.

The Constitution was written by politicians united in revolution I get the feeling that they didn't really give two shits about who was what party.

Secular country? Hardly.

Sophomoric jokes about Alexander Hamilton's descent from a mountain, two tablets in tow, and the comparison of seeking constitutionality to rubbing Buddha's belly are generally a turn off to this mainstream media outlet. Then again that's all we ever see coming from Washington so why should the media be any different.

@NordlichReiter, since you mentioned Hayes' quip at the very tail end of the segment, I have to assume you watched the whole thing.

However, this makes me doubt that:
>> ^NordlichReiter:

The Constitution was written by politicians united in revolution I get the feeling that they didn't really give two shits about who was what party.

That's exactly what these two said. They pointed out that the Constitution was essentially a the result of a compromise amongst a bunch of revolutionaries who didn't really see eye to eye on what it should say, nor what it meant once it was ratified.
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Secular country? Hardly.

By that they mean we're a nation without an official religion, and in fact a nation with a requirement to be neutral on the topic of religion. That's what a secular state is.

As for the last bit about being sophomoric and turned off by media outlets, I guess I just think that's an odd thing to fixate on.

The #1 issue with media right now is that it lies to us most of the time. The only places I really find truth in media anymore comes from people who tend to engage in a little sophomoric humor to communicate the truth.

In this case, the quip about Hamilton and stone tablets helps highlight the absurdity of the implication that the Constitution is some sort of flawless document handed down by infallibly wise Founding Fathers. If you don't hear a ring of truth in that joke, you really didn't listen to what they had to say here at all.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

I'd rather watch Democracy Now or The Real News Network.

The country is secular in policy but practice, hardly. There are numerous cases where religious acts are being invoked politicians and government organizations in power, and the rare occasion where the rule of law takes place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h7ekCD6uE4
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13569794

Don't lecture me on the Establishment Clause.

What the right thinks is an immutable document is just that a document that is subject to the opinion of the reader; which therefore must be debated upon by the people. I said that in my comment above.

However equating the constitution to a fetish is horridly disturbing. It breathes an air of, "it's just a piece of paper," or it's just a vice to be used when you need it but when you don't just put it back in the cabinet; which is exactly what the right does when they need it. This whole piece was just a jab at the short ribs of those less educated to understand what was taking place.

We differ on many things. What we consider to be good reporting or news may be completely different. However I maintain my position that the guest speaker had very good points that were done a disservice by a crude and tacky quip by what I would guess was a news-reader's utterances read from a teleprompter.

On a different note. I got an email for every quote and comment you made @NetRunner. The thought in my head was, "Ah shit, he saw fit to debate me three separate occasions on the same video!" That was until I came here and saw it was from the quotes you took and @ comment.

Instead of bashing the right for having a renewed love affair with the constitution maybe MSNBC should do a round table show with persons from both sides of the table and read the Constitution and discuss it. Make it a 2 hour show or so and dig deep into this document and also the other relevant papers that help shaped the constitution.

Stop bashing each other. Discuss both sides and let the people decide. Gee wouldn't that be novel. Yea I know FOX is just a guilty.

@bobknight33 I agree completely, unfortunately MSNBC has a hard time getting guests from the right to come on any of their programs.

It's probably because these so-called "Constitutionalists" know they'd take a drubbing from anyone who compared what they say with what they do.

Constitutional Mavericks(tm)! That's right. Mavericks(tm)! This so called GOP constitutional spotlighting is just an advertising campaign. Meaningless political rambling distracting the public from the rape both parties are practicing against us all. Yes. That is all.

The Right may not be totally in sync with the Constitution but they are light-years ahead of leftists who believe the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch designed to be shaken when it's time for more government tyranny (for our own good, of course).

There is one part of the Constitution liberals love, the "separation of church and state doctrine", a part which was never in it.

Sorry, what were you blathering about?>> ^quantumushroom:

The Right may not be totally in sync with the Constitution but they are light-years ahead of leftists who believe the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch designed to be shaken when it's time for more government tyranny (for our own good, of course).
There is one part of the Constitution liberals love, the "separation of church and state doctrine", a part which was never in it.

This segment feels like a Fox News bit, only with the fear replaced by hyperbolic humor.

Anyway, I can't wait for the "constitutionalist" argument when some state eventually legalizes a drug.

Since you commented, your total pwnage.

There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government.

I respect these guys. Unlike the jackass party, they don't hide who they are.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Sorry, what were you blathering about?>> ^quantumushroom:
The Right may not be totally in sync with the Constitution but they are light-years ahead of leftists who believe the Constitution was written on an Etch-A-Sketch designed to be shaken when it's time for more government tyranny (for our own good, of course).
There is one part of the Constitution liberals love, the "separation of church and state doctrine", a part which was never in it.

Thomas Jefferson was hardly left and mostly revolutionary. These inconvienent facts are as clear as day. The United States is meant to be Secular. Meaning wholly and unequivocally neutral on religion; "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

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.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[47]

The "hip" Progressives have drifted far from the attitudes of most people.

Jefferson "wrote" his own bible that removed the magic tricks and parlor games entirely. I don't think he had Christianity in mind when the country was founded; far from it in fact. If he thought that much of the religion I don't think he'd go to such lengths to make it personally palpable.