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

[Procrustes Stretched]

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...

In was wrong about the 3/5 clause? Where? you got confused again. Too much dope?

Do state courts get to interpret the US Constitution?

Follow the post with the timeline. Dante posted about the US Constitution. He linked to a Wikipedia page on slavery cases before courts in America, assuming great minds like yours would look at the federal cases. It may have been too big an assumption, but giving you the benefit of the doubt is evidently a great failing of Dante's.

@tweaked

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Having experience dealing with that clown, I would never assume to know what 'he meant' so I only went on what he said.

What you added is basically true excepting the part where 'unbeknownst to the south' makes all of the South look like fools. There were arguments against the ratification because some suspected this type of -- gulp -- slippery slope.

 

[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?

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.

Well when you consider what Obama said:

“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”

that limb you walked out on, appears to break. I don't hear the complaining. I hear the civics lesson for those who need one.

 

[martybegan]

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 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​

Um no, I was talking about the difference between chattel slavery and Roman/Classical slavery. The concept of a slave as property meant that they were protected as any other property would be. That is the whole crux of chattel slavery.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Backtracking again? You appear to be well schooled in that tactic. Dante tips his hat to you.

Now, Mister Peabody, you need to remember that a compromise document, is what I have called the US Constitution in hundreds of posts. We all know what a compromise is.

You claimed the South went along with "a move to set the stage to eventually outlaw slavery." Fact is they did not go along with that. They did not compromise on the slavery issue. the 3/5ths was only about representation as others, including you, have posted. The South never agreed to eventually outlaw slavery. If you had claimed they unwittingly did so, voila! .. Dante would never have granted you an audience.

 

[legaleagle_45]

In was wrong about the 3/5 clause? Where? you got confused again. Too much dope?

Perhaps. You may have been commenting that I was correct instead of asserting that Sallow was correct. If that is true then you are correct. However, if you believe Swallow was correct, you are incorrect, because Swallow was clearly in error, while your response is somewhat ambiguous.

Do state courts get to interpret the US Constitution?

Yes they do. Happens all the time.... In fact I have argued issues of US Constitutional law in state courts before, and will likely do so in the future.... so the remainder of your post is irrelevant.

 

[Stephanie]

You can bet your ass obama wishes we didn't have that pesky system the Founders put in to constrain him..

this isn't the first time he's said this

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

]

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.

Ratcheting up pressure for Congress to limit access to guns, President Barack Obama said Wednesday that recent steps by Colorado to tighten its gun laws show “there doesn’t have to be a conflict” between keeping citizens safe and protecting Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

“I believe there doesn’t have to be a conflict in reconciling these realities,” Obama said in Denver, where he stepped up his call for background checks for all gun purchases and renewed his demand that Congress at least vote on banning assault weapons and limiting access to large-capacity ammunition magazines.

“There doesn’t have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights,” he said.

...

Obama also spoke about the people who say the government is coming after their guns.

“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”

Then you would be as poor a psychic as you are a poor debater. The President never complained that he is being constrained by the US Constitution.

rtfq

read the fucking quote(s), not a Wingnut's distortion

 

[nodoginnafight]

You can bet your ass obama wishes we didn't have that pesky system the Founders put in to constrain him..

this isn't the first time he's said this

Isn't the first time that he's reminded people of our system and how it works?????

The bastard!

How dare he imply that he isn't free to do whatever the heck he wants.

I smell impeachment.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Well when you consider what Obama said:

“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”

that limb you walked out on, appears to break. I don't hear the complaining. I hear the civics lesson for those who need one.

yup. yep. true.

 

[Antares]

Golly...this lil guy doesn't like me...whatever shall I dooooooo....

By the way, who cares what you hear or you don't?

President bitch boy doesn't like not being a king, and resents a piece of paper that prevents him from ding as he wishes (shrugs)

Very simple really.

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?

 

[Antares]

Obama raw....

“We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”

Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In Favor Of Redistribution - Forbes

 

[Antares]

The courts are too tradition and precedent bound “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the liberal Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” Obama opines that the civil-rights movement’s court successes cannot be duplicated with respect to income redistribution: The “mistake of the civil rights movement was (that it) became so court focused” and “lost track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground…In some ways we still suffer from that (mistake).”

 

[Antares]

Fourth, Obama argues that economic rights that the state must supply are ultimately to be established at the ballot box. Those who favor redistribution must gain legislative control through an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” The electoral task of a redistributive President is therefore to craft coalitions of those who stand to benefit from government largess. The legislature, not the courts, must do this “reparative economic work.”

 

[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?

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​

Um no, I was talking about the difference between chattel slavery and Roman/Classical slavery. The concept of a slave as property meant that they were protected as any other property would be. That is the whole crux of chattel slavery.

Um, no. I mentioned slavery in the context of the USA and the US Constitution

btw, I thought chattel slavery was an early, if not the original, form of slavery. It certainly was not invented for black African slaves.

 

[Antares]

The man detests the Constitution.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Very simple really.

I agree - your adolescent bleating is very simple-minded.

You lose credibility when you swing and miss so badly. There are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made, why not stick to those?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

]

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.

Ratcheting up pressure for Congress to limit access to guns, President Barack Obama said Wednesday that recent steps by Colorado to tighten its gun laws show “there doesn’t have to be a conflict” between keeping citizens safe and protecting Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

“I believe there doesn’t have to be a conflict in reconciling these realities,” Obama said in Denver, where he stepped up his call for background checks for all gun purchases and renewed his demand that Congress at least vote on banning assault weapons and limiting access to large-capacity ammunition magazines.

“There doesn’t have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights,” he said.

...

Obama also spoke about the people who say the government is coming after their guns.

“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”

Then you would be as poor a psychic as you are a poor debater. The President never complained that he is being constrained by the US Constitution.

rtfq

read the fucking quote(s), not a Wingnut's distortion

Dainty, you imbecile, quotes come with attribution. Or they should.

Thankfully, your usual sloppiness did not prevent me from tracking down the quoted material you just threw out without attribution. I found it at the Blaze. Obama: Gun Control Won?t Lead to Confiscation Because ?I Am Constrained by a System Our Founders Put in Place? | TheBlaze.com

A little additional digging led me to a tape of his speech at the police academy in Denver yesterday: President Barack Obama says "no conflict" in reconciling new gun laws with gun rights - The Denver Post

So now, I do not have to read isolated snippets of what he said to see whether the claim that the President was "complaining" is fair and accurate or not.

In fact, I can even direct you to the portion of the tape (using the included time-marker). It is right around the 43 minute mark.

Having done that, I can even suggest that you are partly right on this one, Dainty. Fuck. I know; it shocks me too. The claim in the Blaze that he was "complaining" -- in this instance -- about the Constitutionally imposed constraints appears, to me at least, to be inaccurate.

While I may not fully agree with what he's saying, I am more than happy to acknowledge that his comment that he (and lawmakers, generally) are "constrained" by the Constitution appears NOT to have been a "complaint." It was said more by way of reassurance directed against those opposing what he is supporting.

He has had a history of making comments suggesting complaints about what the Constitution does "not" do. But this time doesn't seem to be one of those times.

Which takes me back to what I said before. I am not troubled by his correctly noting that he is constrained.

(Next up I will have to correct you yet again for your abject ignorance and dishonesty regarding the 3/5ths compromise and what it meant and why it was entered into. But for now, I'll let you temporarily bask in the recognition that, even though you did it ineptly, you did make a valid point about what the President said in Denver.)

 

[hortysir]

Ummm......a little late here and I only read the OP and the link, but


To be fair, Obama was saying he's constrained from "taking our guns away"



Context, people....CONTEXT

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ummm......a little late here and I only read the OP and the link, but


To be fair, Obama was saying he's constrained from "taking our guns away"



Context, people....CONTEXT