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

[legaleagle_45]

If President Obama had said a 'ruling' constrained him you'd have a valid argument

an example: If you were to admit the Constitution guarantees Free Speech, as it does, you would not argue for an interpretation and found meaning of 'there is no guarantee to Free speech' in the Constitution.

But you might argue that the 1st amend does not protect arguments which try to make a distinction without a difference and thus censor your comments out of hand...

 

[martybegan]

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?

Because early on you posted what looked like a distinction with a difference. If I say the US Constitution protected slavery, and somebody comes back with 'not in all state' or 'not really' it is assumed they knew the original claim that "the US Constitution protected slavery" is not refuted by adding 'not in all state' or 'not really'.

Stating "the US Constitution protected slavery" is simply stating a fact.

No, the difference we have is that slavery is merely a subset of property at the time, and the consitution aslo protected property. Slavery was not in some special class, with the exception of the fugitve slave clause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Because early on you posted what looked like a distinction with a difference. If I say the US Constitution protected slavery, and somebody comes back with 'not in all state' or 'not really' it is assumed they knew the original claim that "the US Constitution protected slavery" is not refuted by adding 'not in all state' or 'not really'.

Stating "the US Constitution protected slavery" is simply stating a fact.

No, the difference we have is that slavery is merely a subset of property at the time, and the consitution aslo protected property. Slavery was not in some special class, with the exception of the fugitve slave clause.

And even -that- falls under protecting property.
All of this is no different that arguing the constitution protected cattle ranching.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I have always maintained that Obama views the US Constitution as a roadblock to his far left agenda.
Hence, the reason for his hyper-use of executive orders.
Obama uses the "I am doing it anyway, if they don't like it let them sue me" approach.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You did not carefully examine the cases contained in your link, huh?

If this is true, you can easily name a Supreme Court case in the link that says, the US Supreme Court ruled the US Constitution does not protect slavery .. before the Constitution was amended to prohibit slavery

You miss my point which is that most of the cases in your link were not cases from SCOTUS and were not ruling based upon the US Constitution and several of them were rulings made before the Constitution was even drafted.

Lets go examine those listed in your link..

Brom and Bett v. Ashley-- not a SCOTUS case decided several years prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. ruling: Slaves freed on the basis that the Massachusetts constitutional provision

Quock Walker v. Jennison... not a SCOTUS case decided several years prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. ruling: Slaves freed on the basis that the Massachusetts constitutional provision

Commonwealth v. Jennison... not a SCOTUS case decided several years prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. ruling Justice William Cushing instructs jury that "slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished

hmmm no need to continue... I am sure you now see my point.

The key cases from SCOTUS on your list are United States v. The Amistad and Dred Scott... there are other SCOTUS decisions listed but they are basically irrelevant to the issues you raise. Dred Scott being the closest to support your assertion. But that is not quite correct. Essentially, SCOTUS ruled that slavery was protected from federal prohibitions. State prohibitions were in place and were effective so as to bar the institution of slavery within free states with the primary exception being the constitutional requirement to surrender fugitive slaves.

Dred Scott is considered by most scholars to be on the list of worst decisions by SCOTUS... others on the list include Plessy v Ferguson, The Slaughterhouse Cases, and Korematsu v. United States

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

You did not carefully examine the cases contained in your link, huh?

You totally went out into right field by ignoring what you originally responded to. I linked to a Wikipedia page that listed ALL slavery cases, but was specifically addressing US Supreme Court cases.

I was tweaking Marty who went on about things like "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."

The link highlighted case where the US Constitutional protections for slave owners were ruled on.

 

[regent]

The last time historians rated the presidents was in 2010. Beginning with McKinley, the 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan as the ninth best president of the 19 rated, just below LBJ. Of Course FDR was first and Teddy Roosevelt second. Bush the younger was rated 18th. just above Harding, who as usual captured last place.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The last time historians rated the presidents was in 2010. Beginning with McKinley, the 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan as the ninth best president of the 19 rated, just below LBJ. Of Course FDR was first and Teddy Roosevelt second. Bush the younger was rated 18th. just above Harding, who as usual captured last place.

So...?

 

[martybegan]

If this is true, you can easily name a Supreme Court case in the link that says, the US Supreme Court ruled the US Constitution does not protect slavery .. before the Constitution was amended to prohibit slavery

You miss my point which is that most of the cases in your link were not cases from SCOTUS and were not ruling based upon the US Constitution and several of them were rulings made before the Constitution was even drafted.

Lets go examine those listed in your link..

Brom and Bett v. Ashley-- not a SCOTUS case decided several years prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. ruling: Slaves freed on the basis that the Massachusetts constitutional provision

Quock Walker v. Jennison... not a SCOTUS case decided several years prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. ruling: Slaves freed on the basis that the Massachusetts constitutional provision

Commonwealth v. Jennison... not a SCOTUS case decided several years prior to the ratification of the US Constitution. ruling Justice William Cushing instructs jury that "slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished

hmmm no need to continue... I am sure you now see my point.

The key cases from SCOTUS on your list are United States v. The Amistad and Dred Scott... there are other SCOTUS decisions listed but they are basically irrelevant to the issues you raise. Dred Scott being the closest to support your assertion. But that is not quite correct. Essentially, SCOTUS ruled that slavery was protected from federal prohibitions. State prohibitions were in place and were effective so as to bar the institution of slavery within free states with the primary exception being the constitutional requirement to surrender fugitive slaves.

Dred Scott is considered by most scholars to be on the list of worst decisions by SCOTUS... others on the list include Plessy v Ferguson, The Slaughterhouse Cases, and Korematsu v. United States

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

You did not carefully examine the cases contained in your link, huh?

You totally went out into right field by ignoring what you originally responded to. I linked to a Wikipedia page that listed ALL slavery cases, but was specifically addressing US Supreme Court cases.

I was tweaking Marty who went on about things like "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."

The link highlighted case where the US Constitutional protections for slave owners were ruled on.

Not really tweaking, more like watching two Aspies argue over 2 seconds of blurred footage from the latest Star Trek Movie.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

hmmm no need to continue... I am sure you now see my point.

The key cases from SCOTUS on your list are United States v. The Amistad and Dred Scott... there are other SCOTUS decisions listed but they are basically irrelevant to the issues you raise. Dred Scott being the closest to support your assertion. But that is not quite correct. Essentially, SCOTUS ruled that slavery was protected from federal prohibitions. State prohibitions were in place and were effective so as to bar the institution of slavery within free states with the primary exception being the constitutional requirement to surrender fugitive slaves.

Dred Scott is considered by most scholars to be on the list of worst decisions by SCOTUS... others on the list include Plessy v Ferguson, The Slaughterhouse Cases, and Korematsu v. United States

I was addressing the US Constitution in the context of President Obama's statement and the OP: Obame re: guns" "I am constrained by a system that the Founders put in place"

The US Constitution protected the rights of slave owners in the same way the US Constitution protects gun rights. I never said the US Constitution did not allow states from banning slavery as states that banned slavery already existed. I've only addressed the US Constitution, not state constitutions as this is in the context of the OP

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If President Obama had said a 'ruling' constrained him you'd have a valid argument

an example: If you were to admit the Constitution guarantees Free Speech, as it does, you would not argue for an interpretation and found meaning of 'there is no guarantee to Free speech' in the Constitution.

But you might argue that the 1st amend does not protect arguments which try to make a distinction without a difference and thus censor your comments out of hand...

Constructive criticism, and attempts to highlight and dismiss misrepresentations and worse out of hand, should be enshrined in USMB's Constitution

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Your point?
Is it your assertion that because the current president is of your ilk that he be permitted to ignore the Constitution?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

What does all of this have to do with the fact that the sitting president believes the US Constitution, a document that under OATH he promised to protect and defend, he can simply cast aside so that he may further his agenda?
The remarkable part of this is the consistency in which you people evoke 'slavery' in every discussion involving the Constitution.

You and the rest of your ilk are just full of wisdom and logic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because early on you posted what looked like a distinction with a difference. If I say the US Constitution protected slavery, and somebody comes back with 'not in all state' or 'not really' it is assumed they knew the original claim that "the US Constitution protected slavery" is not refuted by adding 'not in all state' or 'not really'.

Stating "the US Constitution protected slavery" is simply stating a fact.

No, the difference we have is that slavery is merely a subset of property at the time, and the consitution aslo protected property. Slavery was not in some special class, with the exception of the fugitve slave clause.

And even -that- falls under protecting property.
All of this is no different that arguing the constitution protected cattle ranching.

What? How?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The last time historians rated the presidents was in 2010. Beginning with McKinley, the 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan as the ninth best president of the 19 rated, just below LBJ. Of Course FDR was first and Teddy Roosevelt second. Bush the younger was rated 18th. just above Harding, who as usual captured last place.

What? Hello Manilla? Can you read me?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Your point?
Is it your assertion that because the current president is of your ilk that he be permitted to ignore the Constitution?

Whatever drugs you are on, please DO NOT share them with anyone.

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

The President is saying he cannot and will not ignore the Constitution. and btw, the President is NOT of Dante's ilk

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

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?

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.

By 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.

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.

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?

Because early on you posted what looked like a distinction with a difference. If I say the US Constitution protected slavery, and somebody comes back with 'not in all state' or 'not really' it is assumed they knew the original claim that "the US Constitution protected slavery" is not refuted by adding 'not in all state' or 'not really'.

Stating "the US Constitution protected slavery" is simply stating a fact.

No, the difference we have is that slavery is merely a subset of property at the time, and the consitution aslo protected property. Slavery was not in some special class, with the exception of the fugitve slave clause.

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

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?

It was Dante who introduced the topic of 'slavery' as an analogy

The original point was about why the US Constitution was created. You introduced a distinction dealing with slavery. You did NOT refute the basic fact that the US Constitution protected the rights of the traders and owners of slaves. All you did was introduce distinctions about slaves as a class and...

note: browser still open. posted twice....deleted previous one​

 

[Antares]

Its beyond them, they haven't a clue as to what the 3/5's clause actually meant.

...oh yes, and Dante/Moron......redundant.

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?

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Its beyond them, they haven't a clue as to what the 3/5's clause actually meant.

...oh yes, and Dante/Moron......redundant.

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?

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.

Rootoodlelew? wtf does the 3/5 have to do with any points Dante made, you demented Fairy from Down Under Dante's Ball Sac?

 

[Desperado]

Well no.

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

Along with some other niceties..

So what? The Constitution was amended and the problem was solved.
Which is more than can be said about the Bible. Slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.
Slavery in the Bible

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

Incorrect.