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

[IlarMeilyr]

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

Incorrect.

Right. Sallow was incorrect.

And that 3/5ths compromise reference mis-states the purpose of using any "fractional" accounting of slaves anyway.

Of course it strikes us today as kind of disgusting. It dealt with slavery. But, in the context of the time and why those opposed to slavery even considered seeking a compromise, it wasn't as disgusting as it NOW strikes us.

It was, oddly enough, a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Incorrect.

correct

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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

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

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?

Dainty likes to imagine lots of fairies under his scrotum.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Incorrect.

Right. Sallow was incorrect.

And that 3/5ths compromise reference mis-states the purpose of using any "fractional" accounting of slaves anyway.

Of course it strikes us today as kind of disgusting. It dealt with slavery. But, in the context of the time and why those opposed to slavery even considered seeking a compromise, it wasn't as disgusting as it NOW strikes us.

It was, oddly enough, a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery.

You are claiming the South went along with "a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery?"

Mister Peabody?

 

[legaleagle_45]

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.

Incorrect. What you stated was this:

Court rulings the US Constitution protecting slavery

Then you provided a link. You did not say

Here is a link to some cases but disregard all but the ones not involving SCOTUS and all SCOTUS cases which do not implicate the Constitution... which in reality means... Dred Scott in 1859 which is one of the most criticized decisions of SCOTUS and considered as one of the leading causes of the Civil War, which ended slavery.

The other case I mentioned, Armistad was in Admiralty and released the kidnapped Africans because the court held that the international slave trade was in violation of US Treaty and that blacks kidnapped as slaves had the right to use force to regain their freedom.... not a Constitutional case. The other SCOTUS cases in the list are really not constitutional rulings on slavery at all but dealt with statutory laws, and supremacy and choice of law issues. ... so there is only one case in your entire list which meets your now revised explanation, to wit Dred Scott.

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

Nope it did not highlilight or otherwise distinguish cases involving US Constitutional protections...

American slave court cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was tweaking Marty

And I am tweaking you cuz that's what legaleagles do...

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

If the quote you pasted with this opinion:

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

is accurate, then I'd say it has occured to him. Since that is exactly what he is saying in the quote. Do you hate agreeing with Obama? Cause apparently you and the CIC see eye to eye on this one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

IliarMeliar , the Mister Peabody of USMB

[youtube]uTozjRFR-W4[/youtube]

the South went along with "a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery."

 

[tjvh]

Constrained? That is just another way for the whiner Obama to say that the pesky Constitution won't let him remake America around his socialist vision. Cry me a river...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is true that he is constrained.

And it is good that he recognizes a much.

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

Incorrect.

correct

Incorrect.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

IliarMeliar , the Mister Peabody of USMB

* * * *

the South went along with "a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery."

^ the word "compromise" sails over poor little Dainty's pin head.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Incorrect. What you stated was this:

Court rulings the US Constitution protecting slavery

Then you provided a link. You did not say



The other case I mentioned, Armistad was in Admiralty and released the kidnapped Africans because the court held that the international slave trade was in violation of US Treaty and that blacks kidnapped as slaves had the right to use force to regain their freedom.... not a Constitutional case. The other SCOTUS cases in the list are really not constitutional rulings on slavery at all but dealt with statutory laws, and supremacy and choice of law issues. ... so there is only one case in your entire list which meets your now revised explanation, to wit Dred Scott.

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

Nope it did not highlilight or otherwise distinguish cases involving US Constitutional protections...

American slave court cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was tweaking Marty

And I am tweaking you cuz that's what legaleagles do...

Using a type of shorthand/headliner, I apologize.

In the judicial system it is the SCOTUS that is the final word on the US Constitution. That should not have to be spelled out.

I have responded in the context of the OP. I know that is unusual here, but...

There is a reason why I sometimes post a timeline that has posts separated out of the multi-quote system. This is one of them. Easy to refer you back to a single post with a fuller context

...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Incorrect.

correct

Incorrect.

I thought you'd do IT, and you have. You call a post 'incorrect' - I call your post 'correct' - you call my post calling your post correct, 'incorrect'

See? This is what you have done in more than a few threads.

@tweaked

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

IliarMeliar , the Mister Peabody of USMB

* * * *

the South went along with "a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery."

^ the word "compromise" sails over poor little Dainty's pin head.

IliarMeliar , the Mister Peabody of USMB

[youtube]uTozjRFR-W4[/youtube]

the South went along with "a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery."

Mister Peabody did IT again. He insists the South's compromise was to allow a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery. That is why the South insisted on new territories and states being allowed to have slavery.

 

[legaleagle_45]

In the judicial system it is the SCOTUS that is the final word on the US Constitution. That should not have to be spelled out.

It does not have to be spelled out to me. SCOTUS has the final word, but that does not mean other courts can not interpret the US Constitution.. They can and they do... so your point is what? That you believe in addition to the admitted fact that SCOTUS has the final word on the US Constitution, that they are the only court who can make rulings on the US Constitution? If so, you are clearly wrong.

Just like you are wrong about the 3/5ths clause...

 

[legaleagle_45]

Mister Peabody did IT again. He insists the South's compromise was to allow a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery. That is why the South insisted on new territories and states being allowed to have slavery.

Or it could be that he meant that the South agreed to a compromise on slavery issues and that compromise (unbeknownst to the south) led to the eventual abolition of slavery... Which is basically what occured.

 

[foxyladi]

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.

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?

Flawed in some ways perhaps, not in every way.

What? Did you just knock down a straw man?

Could be

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Dainty seriously seems not to be able to grasp that a compromise entails both sides agreeing to things they do not care for to some degree.

He also seems unable to fathom that the result of a compromise might lead to an "end game" where one side actually loses.

Dainty is either tragically ignorant or pitiably dishonest.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is true that he is constrained.

And it is good that he recognizes a much.

So why is OP complaining about the fact that Obama recognizes this?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is true that he is constrained.

And it is good that he recognizes a much.

So why is OP complaining about the fact that Obama recognizes this?

Perhaps (go out on a limb and guess a little bit) the complaint about Obama is that he IS complaining that he is being constrained.