Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality of Slavery Ban

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by dcd_enterprises, Aug 21, 2008.

  1. dcd_enterprises

    dcd_enterprises New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,311
    Location:
    Wheatland, Iowa
    Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality of Slavery Ban
    08/20/2008
    by: Ann Coulter

    This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.

    The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate.

    Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.

    After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

    Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.

    Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people."

    If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.

    Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly!

    The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

    But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

    I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?

    Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

    But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.

    Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"

    This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one!

    In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn."

    By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.

    Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations."

    He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president.

    But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court.

    I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!

    Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," and most recently, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."
  2. dcd_enterprises

    dcd_enterprises New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,311
    Location:
    Wheatland, Iowa
    Given our current choices...Ann Coulter for President
  3. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,330
    Location:
    South Central Texas
    Pray for the United States of America. We are in trouble.
  4. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,882
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Wouldn't that be a riot? :eek::D
  5. mrkirker

    mrkirker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067
    Eddie Ruger for president!
  6. alvagoldbook

    alvagoldbook Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    Slaves are mentioned in the US Constitution, just not by name.

    Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

    "Clause 3: 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."

    Slavery is also mentioned in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1:

    "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."

    This is a lesser known part of the Constitution. Jefferson got Madison to include this, on the belief that banning the importation of slaves after 1808 would slowly over time eliminate slavery all together.

    In any case...just some historical footnotes I wanted to add.
  7. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,449
    Location:
    Indiana
    Alva is right and Ann Coulter is wrong. However, focusing on that misses the big point of the article. Constitutional amendments (except the 21st) are intended to cover areas that were not previously covered. Citing the fact that it's a previously undiscussed area misses the point.

    And really, if he cares so much about the history of the Constitution, he (and every other American politican) should read the 10th Amendment. It's pretty straightforward.
  8. alvagoldbook

    alvagoldbook Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    I couldn't agree more. The 10th amendment is quite possibly the most important one.
  9. Terry_P

    Terry_P New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,513
    Location:
    NH
    Pssst she meant literally not implied. Thats why it has quotes around it.
  10. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,882
    Location:
    New Mexico
    HUH? Alva, did you miss that part or what?
  11. myfaforumname

    myfaforumname Former Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    You're reading things by the same woman who insisted on national TV that Canada was in the Korean War. You might want to find someone who is actually intelligent and read what they write.
  12. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    3,555
    Location:
    Issaquah WA
    Oh my God she made a mistake. Holy ****! :rolleyes:

    EDIT: Which is funny because I decided to look it up, and Canada WAS in Korea. Believe it or not you made a mistake, Coulter claimed Canada had troops in Vietnam, to which the guy on TV pointed out she was wrong, that troops were there in Korea, but not Vietnam.

    I'm afraid you made a mistake and so now we need to "find someone who is actually intelligent and read what they write".
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2008
  13. USMC-03

    USMC-03 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest
    Actually, Canada WAS in the Korean War. Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry was one of the first allied units to arrive in Korea in 1950 and achieved one of the most distinguished combat records. In all there was a full division of the Canadian army along with air and naval forces in active combat operations.



    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt.

    Abraham Lincoln
  14. myfaforumname

    myfaforumname Former Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    "Oh my God she made a mistake. Holy ****!

    EDIT: Which is funny because I decided to look it up, and Canada WAS in Korea. Believe it or not you made a mistake, Coulter claimed Canada had troops in Vietnam, to which the guy on TV pointed out she was wrong, that troops were there in Korea, but not Vietnam."

    Yeah, the difference is I made a typo. The PPCLI called in friendly fire on their own positions in Korea. She was talking about Veitnam and she was far from noting that she was incorrect. She's a partisan leech who just likes to get headlines regardless of the facts so she can line her own pockets. The difference between her and what I said is that she fully believed that Canada was in Vietnam. It wasn't a slip of the tongue and when someone corrected her, she didn't say oh I meant Korea, she said that Canadians were there

    The only Canadians that were in Vietnam were those that enlisted. Canada was wise to avoid both Vietnam and Iraq (the second time around). They do of course put lives on the line daily in Afghanistan. In fact, it was a Canadian who set a long distance sniper record in that country. The Canadian government dissuaded the Yanks from giving him a medal for this as it wouldn't appeal to most of the electorate.

    "In all there was a full division of the Canadian army along with air and naval forces in active combat operations."

    I quite almost was one, so I'm fully aware. There's quite a difference between my typo and that blond idiot who kept insisting that Canada was in Vietnam after it was pointed out that she was incorrect.
  15. Vladimir

    Vladimir New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    3,555
    Location:
    Issaquah WA
    Yes the difference is her arrogance is fun, part of her personality, and earned. Your's is just ugly.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum piers-morgan-constitutional-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-without-infringement-act Jan 24, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Chicago gun sale ban unconstitutional Jan 6, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Majority of NY-SAFE Act ruled Constitutional Dec 31, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum NYPD's 'stop-and-frisk' practice unconstitutional, judge rules Aug 12, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Illinois Concealed Carry Ban Ruled Unconstitutional May 31, 2013

Share This Page