If the Constitution is not binding, why do we have a Supreme Court? This guy writes for a newspaper? Where was he educated, perhaps a liberal college? Besides being stupid, he is also a jerk!

Lefties have a gift of juggleing words, they juggle them around to fit THEIR needs.
Obama is the most UNConstitutional prez we've every had.( & he is NOT my president)..not to mention, un-American..

If the constitution is not binding then the federal government isn't either so we can just ignore it from now on, right? Fine with me.

Unfortunately, the basic Constitutional limits on the authority of the federal government were already on their way out within a few years of the signing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. George Washington was a believer in a strong central government, and the first Supreme Court was packed with those who upheld that notion. That is why there was such strong disagreement between Jefferson, Madison, and Washington regarding the true role of the federal government. Jefferson's constructionist views regarding this subject are best expressed in the Kentucky Resolutions, with Madison providing a similar, if more brief, treatment in the Virginia Resolutions. What is interesting to note is that, by this time, the strong central government idea had already gained in such popularity that Jefferson and Madison were scorned when they called on the other states to sign on to these resolutions. So this isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. What IS new is the speed with which fundamental liberties and states' rights are being eroded in recent years - beginning long before the Obama administration took office. I have little hope of seeing anything turn around with the current crop of legislators we have at ALL levels of government at this time. Turning around this problem around and re-establishing a Constitutional mindset is going to be the work of the coming years as we cultivate and elect legislators who subscribe to these most basic Constitutional precepts. We need to make this a litmus test of all who would represent us before sending them to the state house or the Hill.

Could you try to distort this a bit more? The *reading* of the Constitution does have no binding power. It is a stunt, a photo-op. Why are you deliberately confusing the reading of the Constitution opening Congress with the Constitution itself?

If it's not binding then why can't Arnold run for President? Seems like the party in power cherry-picks what they want out of the Constitution to serve their selfish agenda while everything is a nuisance or an inconvenience. When some candidate promises to work within the 'confines' of the Constitution, I'll always be skeptical of that person. Show me someone that states the 'Constitution is my ally!' That person will have my vote!

Have you ever noticed that people on the left seem to have taken fact right out of the thought process as in what we believe it says versus what it actually does say. Believing requires no fact since we can believe in the easter bunny without actually requiring the easter bunny to exist. If he were to have said what it actually says instead of what people believe it says it would have introduced fact back into the thought process. This allows us to invalidate other people's thoughts and opinions when they don't align themselves with facts. Without the existence of fact then we have no way of invalidating anything they say and all things are equal in that nothing can be said to be false.

We know that reading the constitution won't undo obamacare but reading it might remind people of what it says.