The Obama Administration Year One: The Flight from gun control

[Slave]

imported post

propertymanager wrote:

Obama is not a moderate on any issue. Obama is a SOCIALIST who has surrounded himself in the White House with socialists, communists, and marxists. He is now and always has been anti-gun. He hasn't gone after guns YET because he is waiting for the right time to do so. Right now, he is busy consolidating the control he hason major segments of the American Economy. He WILL get around to gun control, most likely just afterthe coming economic collapse.

Turn Foxnews off please. Glenn/Rush/Ann seem to have you firmly in check. Do you even know what those terms mean? At least google them before you regurgitate them and make an abortion of a post like that one.

You can't condemn a man for something he has not done yet.

Actions as a senator are nothing to do with your actions as a president.

Once again, once he attempts to screw with my guns, then I will start speaking up, until then, it's just Teab Bagger paranoia and closet racism.

 

[eye95]

imported post

There it is! If you don't like Obama's leftism, you're a racist!

Shame on you Slave!

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

Slave wrote:

propertymanager wrote:

Obama is not a moderate on any issue. Obama is a SOCIALIST who has surrounded himself in the White House with socialists, communists, and marxists. He is now and always has been anti-gun. He hasn't gone after guns YET because he is waiting for the right time to do so. Right now, he is busy consolidating the control he hason major segments of the American Economy. He WILL get around to gun control, most likely just afterthe coming economic collapse.

Turn Foxnews off please. Glenn/Rush/Ann seem to have you firmly in check. Do you even know what those terms mean? At least google them before you regurgitate them and make an abortion of a post like that one.

You can't condemn a man for something he has not done yet.

Actions as a senator are nothing to do with your actions as a president.

Once again, once he attempts to screw with my guns, then I will start speaking up, until then, it's just Teab Bagger paranoia and closet racism.

Whooaaa whoa whoa there! Did you just attempt to fight partisan rhetoric with partisan rhetoric? I think so! :lol::banghead: Oohhh AND closet racism? WTF? LOL.... more three letter acronyms.....etc.

Talk about discrediting your own position.

As far as actions as a senator having nothing to do with actions as president phooey! How else do you get an idea of someones stance without looking at history? Just look at theconfirmation hearings for the new supreme court nominee. How do you tell anything about anyone without looking at their past? Would you vote for a candidate you knew nothing about? Wouldyou like Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoffto be in charge of the federal reserve because his previous actions would have nothing to do with it?

Obama'shistory is that he's anti 2A, it's pretty simple. The only question here is whether or not he will actually do anything about it as president.

 

[The Donkey]

imported post

DanM wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Well, Obama said he does trust most citizens with keeping and bearing arms. He just wants to keep them out of the hands of inner city criminals and the mentally ill.

This isn't true. Review the web-page I linked to above. Look, I understand and see thatObama has some qualities that are good, but don't let that get in the way of being honest about his actions and his views on citizens keeping and bearing arms. He expresses views and, most telling, has taken actions that go well beyond keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. His views and actions would keep and have kept guns wrongfully out of the hands of perfectly law-abiding citizens, most particularly with regard to his support and actions with banning guns blanketly in wide geographic areas.

I think credibility around here is important, and I think you are endangering your credibility trying to characterizeObama'sgun control statements and actionsthe way you are attempting.

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

There is plenty here for those of youwho like to deconstruct: but first consider the basics: Before Heller, Obama endorses the general principle of PRTKBA, subject to local laws that"determine how you can use it."

He goes out of his way NOT to support gun registration and licensing schemes, focusing instead on criminals, mentally ill, unscrupulous dealers and straw purchasers.

I would describe this answer as a bit confused, but with plenty of material I can work with.

 

[eye95]

imported post

What I notice is two fairly simple yes/no questions to which he did not say yes or no to either!

We have only one place to look to know what he truly believes: His Illinois votes.

 

[PointofView]

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

propertymanager wrote:

Obama is not a moderate on any issue.  Obama is a SOCIALIST who has surrounded himself in the White House with socialists, communists, and marxists.  He is now and always has been anti-gun.  He hasn't gone after guns YET because he is waiting for the right time to do so.  Right now, he is busy consolidating the control he has on major segments of the American Economy.  He WILL get around to gun control, most likely just after the coming economic collapse.

I know. I know.

Glen and Rush agree so it must be true.

But if you spend all your time down in the basement, will you recognize the economic collapse when it comes?

"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."

-- Rush Limbaugh, quoted by the St. Petersburg Times, arguing that a cleanup of the oil spill off the Lousiana coast is unnecessary.

Now I think Obama should be supported blindly because Rush is against him, which means he is in disagreement with Rush.

Now for a voice of reason.

Here's his quote about the oil spill "The ocean will take care of this. It's as natural [the oil] as the ocean water is." That's right, a petrochemical stew is very natural to wetlands. You know what, you dip@#$%? Mercury's natural too -- you don't put it in your Cheerios. - Bill Maher.

 

[Slave]

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

Slave wrote:

propertymanager wrote:

Obama is not a moderate on any issue. Obama is a SOCIALIST who has surrounded himself in the White House with socialists, communists, and marxists. He is now and always has been anti-gun. He hasn't gone after guns YET because he is waiting for the right time to do so. Right now, he is busy consolidating the control he hason major segments of the American Economy. He WILL get around to gun control, most likely just afterthe coming economic collapse.

Turn Foxnews off please. Glenn/Rush/Ann seem to have you firmly in check. Do you even know what those terms mean? At least google them before you regurgitate them and make an abortion of a post like that one.

You can't condemn a man for something he has not done yet.

Actions as a senator are nothing to do with your actions as a president.

Once again, once he attempts to screw with my guns, then I will start speaking up, until then, it's just Teab Bagger paranoia and closet racism.

Whooaaa whoa whoa there! Did you just attempt to fight partisan rhetoric with partisan rhetoric? I think so! :lol::banghead: Oohhh AND closet racism? WTF? LOL.... more three letter acronyms.....etc.

Talk about discrediting your own position.

As far as actions as a senator having nothing to do with actions as president phooey! How else do you get an idea of someones stance without looking at history? Just look at theconfirmation hearings for the new supreme court nominee. How do you tell anything about anyone without looking at their past? Would you vote for a candidate you knew nothing about? Wouldyou like Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoffto be in charge of the federal reserve because his previous actions would have nothing to do with it?

Obama'shistory is that he's anti 2A, it's pretty simple. The only question here is whether or not he will actually do anything about it as president.

I used partisan rhetoric? Where? My teabagger comment? Really? Closet racism? I said earlier in this thread that it is BLATANT racism. Go back and read the whole thread.



I am not talking about the federal reserve. I am talking about a president's power to create laws to restrict our guns. Presidents can not. Presidents can not make laws. No one in the house or senate will pick up that battle, because politically it is suicide.

I said it earlier: NOT ALL LIBERALS ARE ANTIGUN. NOT ALL PROGRESSIVES ARE ANTIGUN. NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE PROGUN.

Obama can talk all he wants as a senator about gun control, as he has power. As a president, he has none. Do you undertand that point? You may understand it this way: THAT DERE PREEZIDINT DON'T GOT NO POWER TO CREATE NO LAWS TO TAKE MAH GUNZ!!!

A bad cook wants to become a welder, his time spent cooking, and his skill at cooking, have nothing to do with his skill as a welder.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

Slave wrote:

I used partisan rhetoric? Where? My teabagger comment? Really? Closet racism? I said earlier in this thread that it is BLATANT racism. Go back and read the whole thread.



I am not talking about the federal reserve. I am talking about a president's power to create laws to restrict our guns. Presidents can not. Presidents can not make laws. No one in the house or senate will pick up that battle, because politically it is suicide.

I said it earlier: NOT ALL LIBERALS ARE ANTIGUN. NOT ALL PROGRESSIVES ARE ANTIGUN. NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE PROGUN.

Obama can talk all he wants as a senator about gun control, as he has power. As a president, he has none. Do you undertand that point? You may understand it this way: THAT DERE PREEZIDINT DON'T GOT NO POWER TO CREATE NO LAWS TO TAKE MAH GUNZ!!!

A bad cook wants to become a welder, his time spent cooking, and his skill at cooking, have nothing to do with his skill as a welder.

First of all, I think you make the mistake of believing I'm in agreement with propertymanager when I clearly implied that you're both using partisan rhetoric. I'm a Libertarian by the way.

Secondly, you can totally believe the world is flat and keep telling me that all day long if you want but I won't believe that either. Presidents certainly have the clout to push for laws, and they surely have the power to sign them.

Many people believe the health care reform bill was political suicide but he pushed for, and signed that. We'll see soon if it was political suicide. Now your telling me that gun control is political suicide so he won't do it? LOL!

About the only thing you said that's agreeable to me is the fact that those political parties you mentioned all have pro gun and anti gun members.

Lastly, the insulting way you responded to my post with your unfounded stereotyping (you know, your intentional language butchery) just proves your not worth having any further discussion with.

ETA: sorry for the quoting if it doesn't show up, I replied on me cell phone.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

One thing is certain: this country is undergoing a radical shift to the Right. But don't worry, all you "moderates", the reason the shift is so radical is that it is a counter shift back to right-of-center from the Leftist drift that has been accelerated by radical Leftists holding sway in the White House and both Houses of Congress.

From taxes and spending through firearms laws, the Demonrat Left is in headlong retreat. And now, with fully 63% of the nation supporting Arizona's new law requiring proof of citizenship be shown to LE on demand, they have another losing position - and one they cannot flee from. They dare not, there are too many votes to lose. But unless they also drop opposition to the Arizona law, illegal aliens may be the only votes (besides dead Chicagoans) they get this year and in 2012.

At that point, they might have to change the symbol of their quest for office from the Donkey to Don Quixote.

 

[PointofView]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

One thing is certain: this country is undergoing a radical shift to the Right. But don't worry, all you "moderates", the reason the shift is so radical is that it is a counter shift back to right-of-center from the Leftist drift that has been accelerated by radical Leftists holding sway in the White House and both Houses of Congress. 

From taxes and spending through firearms laws, the Demonrat Left is in headlong retreat. And now, with fully 63% of the nation supporting Arizona's new law requiring proof of citizenship be shown to LE on demand, they have another losing position - and one they cannot flee from.  They dare not, there are too many votes to lose.  But unless they also drop opposition to the Arizona law, illegal aliens may be the only votes (besides dead Chicagoans) they get this year and in 2012.

At that point, they might have to change the symbol of their quest for office from the Donkey to Don Quixote.  

 

Taxes and Spending?

Number 1. Taxes are lower now than under your precious Reagan. So the tea party thing is all bull and made up by sore loser repubs.

Number 2. I remember Clinton being the last president I can remember creating a surplus. Not the republicans.

Number 3. As much as the right hates to hear it, Bush did leave a big steaming pile for the current administration to handle. The bailout was forced due to actions under the republican's rule. You can point fingers and say that some of the problems occured under Clinton, but 6 years of house , senate and presidency would have allowed for any changes that were required to be made.

Now on to my own logic which floored my Republican father. Why is DC allocating money for construction projects, and economic catalysts back in to the states and cities? Should the mandate of the federal government spend its tax revenues only on projects and programs that are for the entire nation? Why are they funding area's in Youngstown and bridges in Alaska? The states should be responsible for all its own affairs but each senator and congressman try to fund projects within their own state. I find this to be simply wrong. Why do people that get elected to vote for federal policy go to DC and try to do a money grab? I think the system needs to be rethought with a law that makes it illegal to fund construction projects and programs specific to a state which is not located on Federal Land or in a National Park, Military Facility etc with federal funds. That is the fiscal fix. Allow states to tax based on the correct rates to meet the priority of that state. This would eliminate the conflict of interest.

Does anyone disagree with that? I mean .. at that point what are state funds for? Lower federal taxes and allow states to tax based on their own plans. This would create competition for businesses and people alike. This would promote better efficiency of state and federal funds.

Just a thought.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

PointofView wrote:

Taxes and Spending?

Number 1. Taxes are lower now than under your precious Reagan. So the tea party thing is all bull and made up by sore loser repubs.

Number 2. I remember Clinton being the last president I can remember creating a surplus. Not the republicans.

Number 3. As much as the right hates to hear it, Bush did leave a big steaming pile for the current administration to handle. The bailout was forced due to actions under the republican's rule. You can point fingers and say that some of the problems occured under Clinton, but 6 years of house , senate and presidency would have allowed for any changes that were required to be made.

Now on to my own logic which floored my Republican father. Why is DC allocating money for construction projects, and economic catalysts back in to the states and cities? Should the mandate of the federal government spend its tax revenues only on projects and programs that are for the entire nation? Why are they funding area's in Youngstown and bridges in Alaska? The states should be responsible for all its own affairs but each senator and congressman try to fund projects within their own state. I find this to be simply wrong. Why do people that get elected to vote for federal policy go to DC and try to do a money grab? I think the system needs to be rethought with a law that makes it illegal to fund construction projects and programs specific to a state which is not located on Federal Land or in a National Park, Military Facility etc with federal funds. That is the fiscal fix. Allow states to tax based on the correct rates to meet the priority of that state. This would eliminate the conflict of interest.

Does anyone disagree with that? I mean .. at that point what are state funds for? Lower federal taxes and allow states to tax based on their own plans. This would create competition for businesses and people alike. This would promote better efficiency of state and federal funds.

Just a thought.

*sigh*
1) Only if you are one of the 47% who don't pay any federal income tax (about double the percentage under Reagan). Those of use who have paid net federal income tax every single year for the last 25 years since we were 15 years old and who own small businesses and saw an extra $5,600 in new taxes this year due to re-interpretation of tax rules by the IRS under Obama, we are getting screwed and paying much more than under Reagan's tax cuts

2) Presidents don't create budget surpluses. That is congress' job. Read the constitution (and then explain it to Obama who appointed a deficit commission when the constitution already appoints 535 people to a deficit committee). The republican congress swept in by a landslide in 1994 created a surplus (and then spent the surplus on a spending orgy that would have made JFK democrats throw up). The current fiscal wasteland was created by the congressional democrats amazingingly out-wasting the republicans.

3) The bailout/crash/mtg crisis was brought about primarily through Clinton/Dodd/Frank/Rangle legislation during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration. It was worsened by congressional acts/laws post 2001 and fully exacerbated by the Obama administration's utter ignorance of economics, free markets or the private sector at all levels.

And lastly, yes I disagree with you in that you are involving the federal gov't where it does not belong. The feds should defend our borders (they don't), defend our foreign interests (kinda do) and protect free trade among the states (they interfere far more than they protect). Besides that they should be pretty much out of every facet of our lives. The states are then free to tax, spend or do whatever they want under the 10th amendment.

 

[PrayingForWar]

imported post

Bingo, furthermore republicans only had complete control of congress from 2002-2006. Every attempt they made to do fiscally responsible things like end the free houses for parasites program that Barney frank still defends was thwarted. Clinton also did not have to fight 2 wars, so it should have been easier to spend even less. That said, the republicans did drop the ball, and they've suffered for it.

If you moonbats are going to keep howling about those on the right listening to limbaugh and fox, how about you turn off CBS, NBS, ABS PBS and CNNBS? As far as intolerant biased propaganda goes, the democrat party has the bully pulpit locked down, but the constitution prevents them from taking away all the soapboxes.

Now, on to GUNS. It's more than clear to any lucid person, that throughout history the most evil regimesin the world have been left of center, The Nazi/Fascists were "progressive" don't forget, until they began to compete with Lenin's acolytes for power. The left has consistently attempted to disarm the people of the world, and the results are alwaysthe same.

If you call Bush 41 a "right winger", you're missing the boat. He was a globalist first, and enacted executive orders that prevent us from buying foreign military surplus to this day. His son "W"was no "conservative" in my book either. More of a religious liberal if anything. He did absolutely nothing to reverse the antigun advancements, or even set back the brady clowns.

Since Obozo was elected WE have set the clowns back. We've bought and stockpiled weapons and ammo at unprecedented levels, sending a clear message to the left that we will not sit idly by as they destroy the greatest empire that has ever existed. WE have engaged in protests, demonstration, grass roots organising andcollected money. Just like the moonbats do. except WE have lives, jobs, and families to care for. The left has been doing what we just started doing for years, and I hope we keep our momentum so they finally do what they promised in 2004, to take their parasitic delusional a$$es to Canada where they'd be more comfortable disarmed, over taxed, but entiled to free substandard medical services.

There, now you son's of b!tches know how I feel.

 

[since9]

imported post

If he's so benign, why is Palin warning us to look out because it's soon to come?

I'm no more for Palin than I am Obama. It stands to reason, though, when someone hollars, "lookout!" it's time to duck.

 

[PointofView]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

The Air Force was added as it was not in existence at the time.

Hence living document.

The Air Force is simply a modern form of the Army mentioned in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the current Air Force was once a part of the Army organization. When the Air Force was created, it was simply a reorganization. The Constitution did not change.

It changed when they stopped counting Blacks as 3/5 of a person.

 

[PointofView]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

But...but...but, President Obama has done nothing yet as president, they say. How dare we criticize him as being anti-RKBA?

There are none so blind as those who will not see. This president is demonstrably anti-Liberty in general and anti-RKBA in specific. Any argument to the contrary can only rely on the fact that he has done nothing yet on gun control as president. Fail.

I just notice a discrepency when he who has not done anything wrong gets his own hate thread.. and the NRA who lied and sold out much of its credibility, created a panic amongst the weak minded lemmings, and resulted in the death of police officers in Pitt. was not touched on at all in this forum.

My beef with this forum in general is that as long as someone is for 2a, no matter the method they get a pass on all the dishonesty they use to further it. By all means necessary is not a plan it is an attack and should not be tolerated.

So perhaps the amount of effort that has gone into this thread should be used to get the NRA on the right path of honesty and start a petition to get them to stop running BS ads as it diminishes the legitimate arguments and muddys the water. So go ahead and start the thread and see how defense they get.

 

[PointofView]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

PointofView wrote:

Taxes and Spending?

Number 1. Taxes are lower now than under your precious Reagan. So the tea party thing is all bull and made up by sore loser repubs.

Number 2. I remember Clinton being the last president I can remember creating a surplus. Not the republicans.

Number 3. As much as the right hates to hear it, Bush did leave a big steaming pile for the current administration to handle. The bailout was forced due to actions under the republican's rule. You can point fingers and say that some of the problems occured under Clinton, but 6 years of house , senate and presidency would have allowed for any changes that were required to be made.

Now on to my own logic which floored my Republican father. Why is DC allocating money for construction projects, and economic catalysts back in to the states and cities? Should the mandate of the federal government spend its tax revenues only on projects and programs that are for the entire nation? Why are they funding area's in Youngstown and bridges in Alaska? The states should be responsible for all its own affairs but each senator and congressman try to fund projects within their own state. I find this to be simply wrong. Why do people that get elected to vote for federal policy go to DC and try to do a money grab? I think the system needs to be rethought with a law that makes it illegal to fund construction projects and programs specific to a state which is not located on Federal Land or in a National Park, Military Facility etc with federal funds. That is the fiscal fix. Allow states to tax based on the correct rates to meet the priority of that state. This would eliminate the conflict of interest.

Does anyone disagree with that? I mean .. at that point what are state funds for? Lower federal taxes and allow states to tax based on their own plans. This would create competition for businesses and people alike. This would promote better efficiency of state and federal funds.

Just a thought.

*sigh*
1) Only if you are one of the 47% who don't pay any federal income tax (about double the percentage under Reagan). Those of use who have paid net federal income tax every single year for the last 25 years since we were 15 years old and who own small businesses and saw an extra $5,600 in new taxes this year due to re-interpretation of tax rules by the IRS under Obama, we are getting screwed and paying much more than under Reagan's tax cuts

2) Presidents don't create budget surpluses. That is congress' job. Read the constitution (and then explain it to Obama who appointed a deficit commission when the constitution already appoints 535 people to a deficit committee). The republican congress swept in by a landslide in 1994 created a surplus (and then spent the surplus on a spending orgy that would have made JFK democrats throw up). The current fiscal wasteland was created by the congressional democrats amazingingly out-wasting the republicans.

3) The bailout/crash/mtg crisis was brought about primarily through Clinton/Dodd/Frank/Rangle legislation during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration. It was worsened by congressional acts/laws post 2001 and fully exacerbated by the Obama administration's utter ignorance of economics, free markets or the private sector at all levels.

And lastly, yes I disagree with you in that you are involving the federal gov't where it does not belong. The feds should defend our borders (they don't), defend our foreign interests (kinda do) and protect free trade among the states (they interfere far more than they protect). Besides that they should be pretty much out of every facet of our lives. The states are then free to tax, spend or do whatever they want under the 10th amendment.

1. Go flat tax.

2. Yay on taxing dividends the same as income as it is income. (wealthy loophole) and yes I play the market and the last two weeks have sucked.

3. Presidents submit their spending plan and potential budgets to congress. This happens.. not making it up.

4. so .. at the end of the Clinton administration this was caused and then.. Repubs on the hill and in the white house did what to fix this? One that is not a validated stance and two lack of effort is the same as failure. Inaction on problems that snowball into storms of flying brown stuff when you had oh... eight years to change it.. that can be attributed to the person at the helm as responsible.

5. The bailout is turning around and payments with interest are being paid back to the govt. So may be lost but not as expensive as advertised when it is all said and done.

6. I like so many would love to let businesses that play with money irresponsibly go under but I am not versed enough on that industry to know how that would have panned out.

 

[eye95]

imported post

PointofView wrote:

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

The Air Force was added as it was not in existence at the time.

Hence living document.

The Air Force is simply a modern form of the Army mentioned in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the current Air Force was once a part of the Army organization. When the Air Force was created, it was simply a reorganization. The Constitution did not change.

It changed when they stopped counting Blacks as 3/5 of a person.

It was changed by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the proper way to change the Constitution.

BTW, to be factually accurate, freed Blacks were to be fully counted. It was slaves who were only counted at 3/5 of a person. I am in no way justifying this horrific facet of the Constitution, just being precise.

 

[PointofView]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

The Air Force was added as it was not in existence at the time.

Hence living document.

The Air Force is simply a modern form of the Army mentioned in the Constitution.  As a matter of fact, the current Air Force was once a part of the Army organization.  When the Air Force was created, it was simply a reorganization.  The Constitution did not change.

It changed when they stopped counting Blacks as 3/5 of a person.

It was changed by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the proper way to change the Constitution.

BTW, to be factually accurate, freed Blacks were to be fully counted.  It was slaves who were only counted at 3/5 of a person.  I am in no way justifying this horrific facet of the Constitution, just being precise.

My two points are the constitution is a living document and can be changed if necessary.

The second is that the founding fathers were not infallable.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

PointofView wrote:

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

The Air Force was added as it was not in existence at the time.

Hence living document.

The Air Force is simply a modern form of the Army mentioned in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the current Air Force was once a part of the Army organization. When the Air Force was created, it was simply a reorganization. The Constitution did not change.

It changed when they stopped counting Blacks as 3/5 of a person.

It was changed by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the proper way to change the Constitution.

BTW, to be factually accurate, freed Blacks were to be fully counted. It was slaves who were only counted at 3/5 of a person. I am in no way justifying this horrific facet of the Constitution, just being precise.

My two points are the constitution is a living document and can be changed if necessary.

The second is that the founding fathers were not infallable.

It is not a living document that is progressive crap. Yes it can be changed and it has but the basic bill of rights has not. At least you left out your belief that you can"interpretate" it.

Yes the founding fathers were infallable and many had bad traits that is why not just one wrote the documents. They still are much wiser than progressive politicians today.

Another point on the 3/5 Eye brought out a good point the other was because they didn't want slavery to continue. It was to limit the amount of pro-slave votes the southwould havein congress.

 

[eye95]

imported post

PointofView wrote:

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

The Air Force was added as it was not in existence at the time.

Hence living document.

The Air Force is simply a modern form of the Army mentioned in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the current Air Force was once a part of the Army organization. When the Air Force was created, it was simply a reorganization. The Constitution did not change.

It changed when they stopped counting Blacks as 3/5 of a person.

It was changed by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the proper way to change the Constitution.

BTW, to be factually accurate, freed Blacks were to be fully counted. It was slaves who were only counted at 3/5 of a person. I am in no way justifying this horrific facet of the Constitution, just being precise.

My two points are the constitution is a living document and can be changed if necessary.

The second is that the founding fathers were not infallable.

The "living document" view is not that it can be changed, but that it changes over time without any overt action. It doesn't. I illustrated how your example was not an example of how it changed without any overt action.

Who here is asserting that the Founders were infallible? You may as well stamp your feet and say, "I was making the point that air contains oxygen!" So?

My point was that the Constitution should only be changed by the process defined for changing it, not by reinterpreting it.

And, of course, I was pointing out a glaring error on your part as to what the Constitution says. You might want to exercise more care when you discuss what a document says. You seem to have made the same error in another thread when you related what a Supreme Court ruling said.