Tim Russert's Ron Paul interview

I missed it, but my friend and former Spinsanity co-editor Ben Fritz points out that Tim Russert, who is legendary for his preparation, apparently asked some pretty inane questions of Ron Paul. My favorite is this exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.

REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?

MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?

REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

Does Russert even know what "strict constructionist" means? Being one certainly doesn't mean that you can't amend the constitution. If it did, then constructionists would have to oppose the Bill of Rights, the end of slavery, giving women the right to vote, etc. The whole line of questioning makes no sense.

Comments

[ed]

Does Russert even know what "strict constructionist" means?

No. Maybe he wishes his phone had rung so someone could explain it to him--or at the very least give him enough talking phrases to make it through his dreadful show. Alas, that never happened.

[Rob]

It really is vintage Russert--who btw received the dubious benefit of a legal education at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University. Russert displays not so much thought as the simulacrum of thought, asserting conflict and inconsistency where none exists.

For a look into the shallowness of Russert's intellect, all you need to do is wade through Big Russ and Me," his autobiography disingenuously cast as a tribute to his father. I feel certain that he titled it Big Russ and Me because his publisher recommended against simply naming it Me.

[Joe S.]

FWIW, there are a few parts of the Constitution that are not amendable. The rules regarding slavery were not amendable before 1808, and each state has an unamendable right to equal representation in the Senate.

But these exceptions are very narrowly delineated in Article V. Otherwise, the Constitution was designed for amendment.

[Doug]

"Russert displays not so much thought as the simulacrum of thought, asserting conflict and inconsistency where none exists."

So true. He plays a game of gotcha that is not really concerned with the interviewee's principles, positions, or any other substantive issue. Sidestep the question, and Russert moves on to the next gotcha attempt and the media applaud the exercise in political jujitsu.

I much prefer the style of Stephanopoulos. He seems much more concerned with substance and capable of dealing with real issues.

[Glaivester]

and each state has an unamendable right to equal representation in the Senate.

Technically, that could be amended if every state voted for it (the section reads "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate," indicating that states could be deprived if they so consented) although any new states would likely also have to vote to maintain the amendment upon entry for it to remain valid.