Obame re: guns" "I am constrained by a system that the Founders put in place"

[martybegan]

And the way to fix said document is via amendments, not Supreme Court Roluette.

The inital constitution did not really protect slavery, it tolerated it and took it into account with respects to representative count.

Distinction with a difference? Have to get back to you here.

B initial constitution, do you mean the Constitution before any amendments?

Why Dante says the US Constitution protected the owning and trading of slavery is the fact that only in County Courts of Common Pleas in Massachusetts, the Territorial Court in Oregon State, and State Supreme Courts in the USA did the Federal Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and the Slave Trade lose challenges.

The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.

post amended

Decisons like Dred Scott and any other relied on Slaves as property, which was codified in the laws of the individual states. While the Slave Trade was allowed until a certain period, there are no intrinsic protections above and beyond any other trade at the federal level. The one protection in the consitution consisted of the fugitive slave clause, that merely stated an escaped slave or prisioner did not lose thier slave or prision status simply by making it to a state that did not allow slavery.

 

[Sallow]

Obama: ?I Am Constrained By A System That Our Founders Put In Place? « CBS DC
Thank God for that.

Did it ever occur to the Incompetent-in-Chief, or any of His useful idiot supporters, that the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?

Must realy suck for Him, not being able to dictate His agenda.

You didn't at all understand the quote.

And the Constitution, in no part, amendment, clause or word advocates for violent rebellion.

 

[Sallow]

Distinction with a difference? Have to get back to you here.

B initial constitution, do you mean the Constitution before any amendments?

Why Dante says the US Constitution protected the owning and trading of slavery is the fact that only in County Courts of Common Pleas in Massachusetts, the Territorial Court in Oregon State, and State Supreme Courts in the USA did the Federal Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and the Slave Trade lose challenges.

The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.

post amended

Decisons like Dred Scott and any other relied on Slaves as property, which was codified in the laws of the individual states. While the Slave Trade was allowed until a certain period, there are no intrinsic protections above and beyond any other trade at the federal level. The one protection in the consitution consisted of the fugitive slave clause, that merely stated an escaped slave or prisioner did not lose thier slave or prision status simply by making it to a state that did not allow slavery.

Well no.

The Constitution classified black people as 3/5ths of a human being.

Along with some other niceties..

The Constitution and Slavery:
Provisions in the Original Constitution
Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].
Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obama: ?I Am Constrained By A System That Our Founders Put In Place? « CBS DC
Thank God for that.

Did it ever occur to the Incompetent-in-Chief, or any of His useful idiot supporters, that the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?

Must realy suck for Him, not being able to dictate His agenda.

You didn't at all understand the quote.

Yeah. Sure I didn't.
Expalain specifically what I got wrong, and how.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution classified black people as 3/5ths of a human being.

This is a common mal-understanding. No suprise that you, too, have it wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Distinction with a difference? Have to get back to you here.

B initial constitution, do you mean the Constitution before any amendments?

Why Dante says the US Constitution protected the owning and trading of slavery is the fact that only in County Courts of Common Pleas in Massachusetts, the Territorial Court in Oregon State, and State Supreme Courts in the USA did the Federal Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and the Slave Trade lose challenges.

The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.

post amended

Decisons like Dred Scott and any other relied on Slaves as property, which was codified in the laws of the individual states. While the Slave Trade was allowed until a certain period, there are no intrinsic protections above and beyond any other trade at the federal level. The one protection in the consitution consisted of the fugitive slave clause, that merely stated an escaped slave or prisioner did not lose thier slave or prision status simply by making it to a state that did not allow slavery.

Article 4 of the US Constitution

American slave court cases

The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Obama: ?I Am Constrained By A System That Our Founders Put In Place? « CBS DC
Thank God for that.

Did it ever occur to the Incompetent-in-Chief, or any of His useful idiot supporters, that the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?

Must realy suck for Him, not being able to dictate His agenda.

You didn't at all understand the quote.

And the Constitution, in no part, amendment, clause or word advocates for violent rebellion.

The imbecile OP " the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?"

The US Constitution was created so the states could be united as a more perfect Union

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Darkwind]

Obama: ?I Am Constrained By A System That Our Founders Put In Place? « CBS DC
Thank God for that.

Did it ever occur to the Incompetent-in-Chief, or any of His useful idiot supporters, that the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?

Must realy suck for Him, not being able to dictate His agenda.

It is a shame that the people who have been taught that government is the answer to everything, are now being elected to places of power.

The entire Constitution is a document that limits the power of government, but has a mechanism to be amended so that as circumstances and attitudes change, so can the controls of the document.

Note that I say the controls of the document. Not an increase in the power and scope of government. In the 19th century, a war was fought to hold together the Union of the States, and from that war came a change in attitude for a majority of people. Enough of a change that the Constitution was amended to end slavery and, if not make the blacks equal, to free them from slavery and oppression of southern governments. People will note that the Constitution itself was not radically changed and that the document still shackles government from trampling the rights of the people.

However, that only applies to a people who are willing to accept that the human condition is not perfect, but the government condition is intolerable. We have been slowly educating people into the belief that the chains we removed from the blacks in the south are somehow more attractive to everyone in the 21st century.

A sad state in which we find ourselves.

 

[martybegan]

post amended

Decisons like Dred Scott and any other relied on Slaves as property, which was codified in the laws of the individual states. While the Slave Trade was allowed until a certain period, there are no intrinsic protections above and beyond any other trade at the federal level. The one protection in the consitution consisted of the fugitive slave clause, that merely stated an escaped slave or prisioner did not lose thier slave or prision status simply by making it to a state that did not allow slavery.

Article 4 of the US Constitution

American slave court cases

The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.

The protections were the same for any property owners, as state law declared the slaves chattel, and thus property, not slaves in the classic roman sense, which was more of a social class.

The fugtive slave clause did not protect slavery in and of itself, what it was there for was to prevent any other state from saying "if you reach here, you are free" It tied the slave status to the originating state.

 

[martybegan]

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, this did not provide any "protection" of Slavery, it merely stated how to count said slaves when it came to federal representation and electoral vote calculation.

If you had slaves in your state, the representative power they implied was 3/5 * the number of slaves. No slaves? No need for the calcuation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Decisons like Dred Scott and any other relied on Slaves as property, which was codified in the laws of the individual states. While the Slave Trade was allowed until a certain period, there are no intrinsic protections above and beyond any other trade at the federal level. The one protection in the consitution consisted of the fugitive slave clause, that merely stated an escaped slave or prisioner did not lose thier slave or prision status simply by making it to a state that did not allow slavery.

Article 4 of the US Constitution

American slave court cases

The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.

The protections were the same for any property owners, as state law declared the slaves chattel, and thus property, not slaves in the classic roman sense, which was more of a social class.

The fugtive slave clause did not protect slavery in and of itself, what it was there for was to prevent any other state from saying "if you reach here, you are free" It tied the slave status to the originating state.

Federal law trumped state law, so state rulings that relied on state law could not super-cede federal law. Negroes/Blacks as a class were not automatically slaves.

you started out with "The inital constitution did not really protect slavery, it tolerated it and took it into account with respects to representative count." and I replied that it looked like you were arguing a distinction with a difference, but the US Constitution protected slavery. All the US Supreme Court cases until the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, said so. None of the court cases in the states or territories had the power to change that. It took an amendment abolishing slavery.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, this did not provide any "protection" of Slavery, it merely stated how to count said slaves when it came to federal representation and electoral vote calculation.

If you had slaves in your state, the representative power they implied was 3/5 * the number of slaves. No slaves? No need for the calcuation.

Court rulings the US Constitution protecting slavery: American slave court cases

 

[martybegan]

Article 4 of the US Constitution

American slave court cases

The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.

The protections were the same for any property owners, as state law declared the slaves chattel, and thus property, not slaves in the classic roman sense, which was more of a social class.

The fugtive slave clause did not protect slavery in and of itself, what it was there for was to prevent any other state from saying "if you reach here, you are free" It tied the slave status to the originating state.

Federal law trumped state law, so state rulings that relied on state law could not super-cede federal law. Negroes/Blacks as a class were not automatically slaves.

you started out with "The inital constitution did not really protect slavery, it tolerated it and took it into account with respects to representative count." and I replied that it looked like you were arguing a distinction with a difference, but the US Constitution protected slavery. All the US Supreme Court cases until the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, said so. None of the court cases in the states or territories had the power to change that. It took an amendment abolishing slavery.

Why does it feel like we are arguing the difference between the colors fire engine red and cherry red?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Decisons like Dred Scott and any other relied on Slaves as property, which was codified in the laws of the individual states. While the Slave Trade was allowed until a certain period, there are no intrinsic protections above and beyond any other trade at the federal level. The one protection in the consitution consisted of the fugitive slave clause, that merely stated an escaped slave or prisioner did not lose thier slave or prision status simply by making it to a state that did not allow slavery.

Article 4 of the US Constitution

American slave court cases

The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.

The protections were the same for any property owners, as state law declared the slaves chattel, and thus property, not slaves in the classic roman sense, which was more of a social class.

The fugtive slave clause did not protect slavery in and of itself, what it was there for was to prevent any other state from saying "if you reach here, you are free" It tied the slave status to the originating state.

Don't chase the red herring - you'll just smell like fish.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Has it ever occurred to morons like you that the even many of the people who ratified the US Constitution admitted the Constitution is a flawed document?

Benjamin Franklin expressing why he was voting in favor of the proposed Constitution at the Constitutional Convention on Monday, September 17, 1787:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them... In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad.

Avalon Project - Madison Debates - September 17

The Southern states used the Constitution to keep the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people to own and trade in Slavery?

Of course they did... but have you considered that without those concessions the Constitution would never have been approved? Many historians believe the seeds for the destruction of slavery were sown in the Constitution. This is based upon the growth of non slave states in the Union, leading the slave states to be a continuning and permanent minority voice in the Union. Most of the crisis leading up to the Civil War dealt with not slavery itself, but the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories and the admission of new slave staes. The South had no chance of matching the North in the House (partly as a result of the 3/5ths compromise), but they insisted upon maintaining a "veto" in the Senate. The newly elected Republican President Lincoln ran on a platform not to abolish slavery, but upon a platform of preventing the expansion of slavery into the territories.

Such a situation could not be tolerated as the South would lose all political clout in the Union... thus the Civil War. The theory goes that the Constitution enticed the South into the Union which would inevitably lead to the abolition of slavery because of changing demographics. Without those enticements, no such Union would have occured and slavery would have persisted much longer in the South and would probably still be maintained as a peonage system of some sort.

BTW... a bit of trivia. Franklin himself was one of the very first "abolitionists" in America, Hamilton was also very strongly abolitionist...

 

[martybegan]

Article 4 of the US Constitution

American slave court cases

The US Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional rights of Slave Owners and Traders guaranteed in the US Constitution, until the US Constitution itself was amended.

The protections were the same for any property owners, as state law declared the slaves chattel, and thus property, not slaves in the classic roman sense, which was more of a social class.

The fugtive slave clause did not protect slavery in and of itself, what it was there for was to prevent any other state from saying "if you reach here, you are free" It tied the slave status to the originating state.

Don't chase the red herring - you'll just smell like fish.

Warning duly noted. I like playing with Dainty. He's actually behaving himself, guess they got the meds balance right (finally).

 

[LeftofLeft]

Has it ever occurred to morons like you that the even many of the people who ratified the US Constitution admitted the Constitution is a flawed document?

The Southern states used the Constitution to keep the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people to own and trade in Slavery?

Has it ever occurred to you that The Founders put a process in place to amend or fix The Constitution? Perhaps you think that is flawed and are comfortable with having an individual or select few changing or usurp the process? Please tell us how that process is not as flawed?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Who said that the Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means?

Well, that's not quite right. It was a Supreme Court Chief Justice who said something ALONG THOSE LINES, however. Hughes.

So while I grok Dainty's quibble, he is nevertheless evading the point.

The Constitution can be amended, as Dainty correctly noted; but the meaning ascribed to parts of the Constitution can also be effectively altered depending on what a majority of the SCOTUS SAYS is "meant" by the words they are "interpreting."

EDIT: I got a little more curious. Hughes did NOT make his little pronouncement in any Court decision.

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution. " Hughes, Charles Evans

Source: CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, speech before the Chamber of Commerce, Elmira, New York, May 3, 1907.

-- http://quotationsbook.com/quote/45172/

 

[kwc57]

obama: ?i am constrained by a system that our founders put in place? « cbs dc
thank god for that.

Did it ever occur to the incompetent-in-chief, or any of his useful idiot supporters, that the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?

Must realy suck for him, not being able to dictate his agenda.