An open letter to the people who hate Obama more than they love America

Waiting for a substantive response to my comments.....



So...the question: since the FF's "original intent" was to explicitly approve of slavery Originally Posted by timpage

this comment, written as if a given, needs a reference

Your prose is crap. You discredit the creation of the DoI, BoR, and founding of our country because the slavery issue?

You are a shallow man Timpage, a very shallow man.

And I never addressed my comments on the lack of your own patriotism; but if you are feeling that the shoe fits, then by all means wear it proudly!

However, you were very quick with your direct judgement of my own love of country; despite my comments never directed at your own patriotism!

You are a simpleton hiding behind an avatar.

Waiting for a substantive response to my comments.....

chirp****chirp****chirp****

Something besides me "defaming the Constitution" (didn't you say something about being a lawyer COG? WTF is "defaming the Constitution"?) or not being a good American in Whirlybird's limited judgment.

A significant number of the founding fathers were slave owners. You "originalists" and "strict constructionists" constantly invoke the founding fathers' original intent as the end-all be-all for your bizarre interpretations of the meaning of the constitution. The moron posted up that the FF's never would have approved of abortion. Yet they approved of slavery. I wonder if the moron thinks that they would have approved of abortion for pregnant slaves? If, for instance, it was going to interfere with the ability of the slave to harvest cotton, wash clothes, cook for the slave-owner and his family, you know...cut into the slave-owner's income while the pregnant slave was unable to work because of the pregnancy and post-birth child-rearing obligations. Anyway, I digress....

So...the question: since the FF's "original intent" was to explicitly approve of slavery, does that not call into question the reliability of a constitutional analysis where the cornerstone of the argument is "original intent?" Since at least some of the original intent was blatantly immoral and contrary to all basic human decency?

By the way Whirly, go fuck yourself with your attacks on my patriotism or love of country. WTF would you know about that? Originally Posted by timpage

The Constitution as originally written does not outlaw slavery. That is correct. The issue of slavery was not ignored in the debate surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, however it became apparent that there would be no Constitution if slavery were outlawed at that time. The 3/5 Compromise effectively postponed the consideration of slavery to a later date. I doubt that the Founders believed that it would take a war to outlaw slavery, but that eventually happened, and the Constitution was amended to bring it in line with the current notion of morality.

That is the way the system is supposed to work. That is what the Founders intended. Slavery was much more common back then, on all the continents. Had they outlawed it from the start, there would be no Constitution, and likely, no America, since the Articles of Confederation made it very difficult to trade effectively.

The Constitution used to be the law of the land, and it served us well for many years. As words change, it is important to not reinterpret 18th century language with 21st century meanings. When we do that, we no longer have a Constitution. That is plain to see in our current climate. If we want to change the Constitution, we have an amendment process.

But like I said, there is very little of the Constitution left, so it really doesn't matter. It was quite a remarkable document for its time. We'd be much better off had we followed it, with its amendments, but we haven't, and that is why America is no longer free.

The slavery question is an interesting thing. Despite the media and the "keep 'em on the plantation" crowd over at the DNC, some are finally wising up.

Being attached to an infantry unit, my son and his comrades spend a lot more time together than most married couples. He chuckled when he told me that the one guy in his unit who thought slavery was a great thing was a black guy. He realized he would probably have grown up in a shithole like the one their serving in had his ancestors not paid the price they did so he could be an American.

The Constitution as originally written does not outlaw slavery. That is correct. The issue of slavery was not ignored in the debate surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, however it became apparent that there would be no Constitution if slavery were outlawed at that time. The 3/5 Compromise effectively postponed the consideration of slavery to a later date. I doubt that the Founders believed that it would take a war to outlaw slavery, but that eventually happened, and the Constitution was amended to bring it in line with the current notion of morality.

That is the way the system is supposed to work. That is what the Founders intended. Slavery was much more common back then, on all the continents. Had they outlawed it from the start, there would be no Constitution, and likely, no America, since the Articles of Confederation made it very difficult to trade effectively.

The Constitution used to be the law of the land, and it served us well for many years. As words change, it is important to not reinterpret 18th century language with 21st century meanings. When we do that, we no longer have a Constitution. That is plain to see in our current climate. If we want to change the Constitution, we have an amendment process.

But like I said, there is very little of the Constitution left, so it really doesn't matter. It was quite a remarkable document for its time. We'd be much better off had we followed it, with its amendments, but we haven't, and that is why America is no longer free. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

A war over the abolition of slavery that resulted in 600,000 dead Americans is the way the Constitution is supposed to work? Seriously? Maybe the better way would have been for the Founding Fathers to have recognized that slavery was an abomination that should have been eliminated at the time all the white folks got their constitutional rights?

The point being: any reliance on an analysis that hinges on the framers' "original intent" carries the risk that the "original intent" was flawed.

The original intent will be much less flawed than current interpretation. If we examine original intent and find it flawed, then we can correct it through the process the Constitution gives us. Amendment. There would be much less liberty lost that way, than reinterpreting the document based on the whim of 9 lawyers with a lifetime appointment.

I really think the Founders did not anticipate a war over slavery. I wonder if cooler heads had prevailed we could have settled the matter the way Britain did, but we'll never know. The end of slavery was coming, and the Founders knew that. It really is tragic that it took a war.

I think there was a lot more to the Civil War than slavery. The end of slavery was one of the few benefits of the war.

Waiting for a substantive response to my comments.....

A significant number of the founding fathers were slave owners. You "originalists" and "strict constructionists" constantly invoke the founding fathers' original intent as the end-all be-all for your bizarre interpretations of the meaning of the constitution. Originally Posted by timpage

Until the Constitution is amended, all of its tenets are the supreme law of the land.

So...the question: since the FF's "original intent" was to explicitly approve of slavery, does that not call into question the reliability of a constitutional analysis where the cornerstone of the argument is "original intent?" Originally Posted by timpage

Unequivocally, No!!!

Since at least some of the original intent was blatantly immoral and contrary to all basic human decency? Originally Posted by timpage

The Constitution has been amended to reflect that shift in popular opinion. You "digress" when you use it as an argument to demean the men who wrote the original document. Furthermore, the whole basis of your argument is unfounded. The fact that you have the privilege and the right to make such ridiculous assertions stems directly form the efforts and sacrifices made by the FF. You are like spoiled teenager who declaims his/her parents for enforcing household rules. You entirely benefit from the product of their labor, but you petulantly refuse to subscribe to their rules.

By the way Whirly, go fuck yourself with your attacks on my patriotism or love of country. WTF would you know about that? Originally Posted by timpage

It's more proper to doubt and demean your legal expertise.

A war over the abolition of slavery that resulted in 600,000 dead Americans is the way the Constitution is supposed to work? Seriously? Maybe the better way would have been for the Founding Fathers to have recognized that slavery was an abomination that should have been eliminated at the time all the white folks got their constitutional rights?

The point being: any reliance on an analysis that hinges on the framers' "original intent" carries the risk that the "original intent" was flawed. Originally Posted by timpage

this is beyond simplistic

and btw, how else do you determine the meaning of a law else by the plain words and the intent? you wish to rely on an ever changing meaning? why sir, thats no reliance at all

i noticed a reader liked your post....education isnt what it used to be

The slavery question is an interesting thing. Despite the media and the "keep 'em on the plantation" crowd over at the DNC, some are finally wising up.

Being attached to an infantry unit, my son and his comrades spend a lot more time together than most married couples. He chuckled when he told me that the one guy in his unit who thought slavery was a great thing was a black guy. He realized he would probably have grown up in a shithole like the one their serving in had his ancestors not paid the price they did so he could be an American. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

So, present day African-Americans should really be thanking everybody for the opportunities that were offered to them as a result of their ancestors being enslaved here in America? That's an interesting viewpoint. Bizarre and twisted....but, interesting.

I suspect that most of their ancestors would have preferred to have had the opportunities that the English, Irish, German, Italian, Polish immigrants took advantage of....you know, being able to come over voluntarily? And not have to work for free for white slave-owners? And maybe get to decide where they wanted to live and what sort of work they wanted to do....rather than being kidnapped from their homelands, separated from their families and sold like livestock at auction?

But, that's just me.

You're living in the past, Tim, and seem to be dealing with a lot of anger. Focus on "the Now" and you will feel much less angry.

COG, save it...you flatter yourself.

Blacks controlled the source of slaves.
No white slavers went beyond the coastline.
Blacks enslaved their neighbors sold them
and took their lands.
Sheik hussein isn't descended from slaves
He's descended from slavers.
After 500+ years the blacks left behind
were the ones doing the selling.

What don't you get.
If abolition had been a requirement
the nation would never have been.
We would be like europe.
A collection of little nation states.
With slavery still in existence.

Read history- find out what happened
not what you think happened.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Example many black americans have gone
to africa and stayed awhile but came home
asap. I remember Thomas Freedman wrote a
piece wherein he was thankful his ancestors
were brought to America. Africa while beautiful
was cruel and brutal- America was/is
the promised land.

So, present day African-Americans should really be thanking everybody for the opportunities that were offered to them as a result of their ancestors being enslaved here in America? That's an interesting viewpoint. Bizarre and twisted....but, interesting.

I suspect that most of their ancestors would have preferred to have had the opportunities that the English, Irish, German, Italian, Polish immigrants took advantage of....you know, being able to come over voluntarily? Originally Posted by timpage

Seriously? Have you ever studied WHY the Irish, German, Italian, Polish emigrated? The Irish were the "slaves" of the English empire. Estimates are that some quarter million Irish children were sold into slavery in the Caribbean.

And the Poles: have you never heard of serfdom? Serfs ARE slaves! The Poles fled serfdom.

The Germans and Italians fled war and famine, and the original English colonist fled economic and social servitude.

No one ever mentions the 25 million or so African slaves who for 1300 years were trafficked east! Why? Because it cannot be used by liberal intellectual-midgets such as yourself and WE to "smear" the reputations of the FFs. The African slave trade has been - and still is - a historic fact in Africa that predates the founding of the original thirteen colonies and the FFs. You're just too intellectually lazy to look for your scapegoats elsewhere.

Seriously? Have you ever studied WHY the Irish, German, Italian, Polish emigrated? The Irish were the "slaves" of the English empire. Estimates are that some quarter million Irish children were sold into slavery in the Caribbean.

And the Poles: have you never heard of serfdom? Serfs ARE slaves! The Poles fled serfdom.

The Germans and Italians fled war and famine, and the original English colonist fled economic and social servitude.

No one ever mentions the 25 million or so African slaves who for 1300 years were trafficked east! Why? Because it cannot be used by liberal intellectual-midgets such as yourself and WE to "smear" the reputations of the FFs. The African slave trade has been - and still is - a historic fact in Africa that predates the founding of the original thirteen colonies and the FFs. You're just too intellectually lazy to look for your scapegoats elsewhere. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And you're too intellectually lazy or just too dumb to address the points in my post. Do you truly not understand the distinction between the way that legal immigrants arrived in America v. slaves? The point (like the one on your head) is that the Irish, Germans, Italians, Polish, etc, unlike the slaves, had choices: the choice to leave their country, the choice to live where they pleased when they arrived in America, the choice to stay with their families, the choice to seek out and obtain work of their own choosing. What the fuck difference does it make why they chose to come? The point is THEY CHOSE. And they were free to further choose when they got here. The slaves had none of those options. Do you really not get this? Are you seriously trying to equate the enslavement of millions of African-Americans with the lawful and voluntary immigration of the European masses who came to America? Don't waste my fucking time with your bullshit.

And you're too intellectually lazy or just too dumb to address the points in my post. Do you truly not understand the distinction between the way that legal immigrants arrived in America v. slaves? The point (like the one on your head) is that the Irish, Germans, Italians, Polish, etc, unlike the slaves, had choices: the choice to leave their country, the choice to live where they pleased when they arrived in America, the choice to stay with their families, the choice to seek out and obtain work of their own choosing. What the fuck difference does it make why they chose to come? The point is THEY CHOSE. And they were free to further choose when they got here. The slaves had none of those options. Do you really not get this? Are you seriously trying to equate the enslavement of millions of African-Americans with the lawful and voluntary immigration of the European masses who came to America? Don't waste my fucking time with your bullshit. Originally Posted by timpage

Yeah. Just like you missed the part about the Irish and Poles being slaves, and the Irish children who were sold into slavery in the Western Hemisphere -- and the Germans and Italians being evicted by war and famine from their homes in Europe. Yeah, that's wholly "voluntary"!

More fundamentally, you missed the argument that it is irrelevant that some of the FFs owned slaves in 1789. You've yet to offer any examples where in the world slavery was not common place in 1789. There was nothing about the slave trade in 1789 that was unlawful -- don't you get it? Hence, your and WE's attempts to denigrate the FFs fails absolutely. Once again, your pretentious belief that you and your liberal ilk are more moral and more wise is just more condescending BS.