Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality Of Slavery Ban (Ann Coulter: Bright Nerd Alert)
Ann Coulter.com ^ | 8/20/2008 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 08/20/2008 3:44:34 PM PDT by goldstategop

click here to read article

Obama: the bright nerd! But what a nerd!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

1 posted on 08/20/2008 3:53:03 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: goldstategop

ObamaCarter is an empty suit with a glass jaw.


3 posted on 08/20/2008 3:56:54 PM PDT by Rosemont ($4+ for gas. Can we drill now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rosemont

Someone on the Howie Carr show said he was a stuffed shirt in an empty suit. :)


4 posted on 08/20/2008 3:58:29 PM PDT by pipecorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
5 posted on 08/20/2008 3:58:55 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Wow. It would be fun to watch Ann debate Obama.


6 posted on 08/20/2008 4:00:53 PM PDT by Spokane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
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?

Great column! Thanks for posting it.

7 posted on 08/20/2008 4:04:30 PM PDT by syriacus (They often call me BARRY, but my real name is MISTER SCHMOOZE. [by B.O. + the Faddish Hacks])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Ann hits in on the head here.

“Technically speaking” Obama’s performance was not “bad” at all. If he was up against Hillary it would undoubtedly been a draw, with all marveling at their polemical dexterity and issue-dodging dexterity.

The problem was that John wasn’t playing the same game. He was doing “straight talk” whiles Barry was doing “nuance.” Unfortunately, nuance vs. straight talk is like scissors vs. rock. It was glaringly obvious that Obama was out to bamboozle us by telling us as little as possible through Clinton-speak and legalese. The “above my pay grade” line was the absolute worst of the evening. He outright refused to answer the question. And he wants to be president? By showing us how good he is at pulling the wool over our eyes?

I’m afraid these times are just too dangerous for us to afford to elect another Clinton or Carter. Pooty the Punk may yet think back to the timing of his Georgia invasion as the mistake of his career. The one thing reassuring about him is the knowledge that (unlike Ahmedinajad) he doesn’t want to get nuked any more than we do.


8 posted on 08/20/2008 4:04:41 PM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
As I posted elsewhere, according to Senator Obama's presumptuous analysis of Justice Thomas's "legal mind" and abilities, one can assume he would not think much of Thomas Jefferson either. Jefferson's conclusion that the Constitution would "bind them down from mischief" would most certainly preclude Far Left judges from the kind of "mischief" Obama's kind of judges love. At least, Justice Thomas's "legal mind" understands Jefferson and the other Founders.

As I posted on another thread, some conservative group or individual needs to publish some of Justice Thomas's well-reasoned dissenting opinions, such as that in the Kelo case. Such an undertaking might enlighten voters who never see the dissenting opinions and have been "dumbed down" like Obama by their educational training.

The final paragraph of the Kelo opinion demonstrates clearly why Senator Obama and the far left in America fear a Supreme Court justice who looks to the "intent" or "meaning" of the Founders for guidance in decisions like Kelo. After all, that's what Thomas Jefferson advised, when he said: "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (1823)

Here is the final paragraph of Justice Thomas's opinion:

"The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8—12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court." - Justice Clarence Thomas (Source: Cornell University web site)

To use a phrase the Left often employs, "most Americans," I believe, would find Justice Thomas's "legal mind" to be in accord with that of the genius Jefferson--not with that of the liberal justices and Senator Obama!

9 posted on 08/20/2008 4:05:21 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spokane
It would be fun to watch Ann debate Obama.

It'd be fun to watch anybody debate Hussein. I just hope that McCain gets to borrow a little from R.Regean with a line that might go something like this:

"Well, I wasn't going to say anything about your ears, but when it comes to dealing with foreign adversaries, it's a little 'wet' back there."

10 posted on 08/20/2008 4:10:44 PM PDT by budwiesest (Liberals aren't just dumb. They are devoid of reality and any common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The way it’s written and Obama’s response means that slavery is still legal because the Constitution doesn’t mention it ...it also doesn’t mention not adding gasoline to milk either but we don’t do it .....


11 posted on 08/20/2008 4:10:58 PM PDT by SkyDancer ("What Our Enemies Couldn't Do To Us Our Liberal Democrat Politicians Will")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
What a T.U.R.D.!


12 posted on 08/20/2008 4:11:49 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rosemont

“ObamaCarter is an empty suit with a glass jaw.”

I think that’s a glassass.


13 posted on 08/20/2008 4:13:43 PM PDT by hdstmf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Not wanting to put the word "slave" in the Constitution, the Constitutonal Convention delegates in the late 1780's agreed the Constitution would state that population would be determined by counting the number of "free Persons . . . plus three-fifths of all other Persons . . ." Of course, if one is an "other person" rather than a free person, obviously the "other person" must be "not free"; in other words, a slave.

It's an interesting concept, though: the idea that a human being could count as 3/5 of a person. Maybe Obama would want to apply his great constitutional mind to the task of determining what percent of a person a baby might be: 1/3 before birth, 2/3 upon passage through the birth canal, 3/3 upon issuance of a Social Security number?

Bingo! Then perhaps non-citizens wouldn't be "persons" either? Could we then classify the unborn and the newborn as simply "undocumented immigrants" of a sort? But only if the unborn, the newborn and the undocumented immigrants could be killed ad libitum and added to the municipal landfill -- forget "due process of law."

Disposing of unwanted individuals swiftly and brutally seems to much easier when their "person" status isn't quite in order.

How's that for a Jim-Dandy legacy of slavery?

And then there's this really nifty juridical concept developed by brilliant German legal minds, the Untermensch: from unter, “under, below” + Mensch, “person, human”. That had wonderful practical applications, as well.

All one has to do is to separate the concept "human" from the concept "person." A trick Obama has already mastered.


(Sigh.) [sarc/]
14 posted on 08/20/2008 4:14:42 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious. " - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

“Rookie” made me laugh! Thanks! :D


15 posted on 08/20/2008 4:20:42 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (My spiritual advisor is a lawyer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: toddlintown

This monkey is reduced to screeching and throwing its own bodily filth.


16 posted on 08/20/2008 4:24:04 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: toddlintown
I think the Warren discussion proves the jig is up for at least one candidate.

In Barack Obama's America, you would be placed in a re-education camp for using that kind language, Honky.

17 posted on 08/20/2008 4:25:57 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (His Negritude has made his negritude the central theme of this campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

IIRC, the purpose of the three-fifths clause was to minimize southern slaveowning states’ inflating the size of their Congressional districts by counting persons deprived of their rights to participate or vote (i.e., slaves).

The three-fifths clause did not question anybody’s humanity.


18 posted on 08/20/2008 4:28:04 PM PDT by elcid1970 (My cartridges are dipped in pig grease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Spokane
I would pay serious money for a front row seat if that event were ever a reality. Of course Barry (No Peace be upon his unmentionable middle name) Obama would never, ever agree to such a debate, even when he has lots-o-time on his hands in the new year...

So many excellent lines in this piece but this one is priceless: "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.""

19 posted on 08/20/2008 4:28:31 PM PDT by Prov1322 (Enjoy my wife's incredible artwork at www.watercolorARTwork.com! (This space no longer for rent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

He is the ONE !!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ...............


20 posted on 08/20/2008 4:30:59 PM PDT by Deetes (God Bless the Troops .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; All
It's true, Obambi's statement on the marriage amendment issue displays breathtaking idiocy. The whole POINT of any proposed amendment to the US Constitution is to define and specify a fundamental (i.e., constitutional) requirement that was NOT specified in the original constitution ( or to change something from what was originally there, yes, but not exclusively so):

"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?

21 posted on 08/20/2008 4:32:41 PM PDT by Enchante (Obama-cons: Trying to fool America, one media dupe at a time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Annie’s guns are loaded.........and hitting the target!


22 posted on 08/20/2008 4:39:15 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest

Her suggestion about Kevin Federline nearly made me wet my pants. Hysterical.


23 posted on 08/20/2008 4:48:23 PM PDT by adopt4Christ (The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

I stand corrected. Right you are. In addition to my [sarc] label I need a [loose meandering thoughts] label to cover that kind of post. :o/


24 posted on 08/20/2008 4:53:24 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious. " - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
Go back,click on the drawing, and then ... buy the T-shirt.

Or


25 posted on 08/20/2008 5:04:54 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I heard someone call him “Chance the Gardiner”

Beside the fact that Chance was actually very sweet and Obama is a self centered jerk, their stories are the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There


26 posted on 08/20/2008 5:22:47 PM PDT by netmilsmom (The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spokane

>>Wow. It would be fun to watch Ann debate Obama.<<

No debate; would be more of a “sit-down, shut-up, you-might-learn-something” lesson in humility.

BTW, the pics, where are the pics? You know the rules.

We thank God for giving us Ann!


27 posted on 08/20/2008 5:25:27 PM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

How about Bill Maher for VP, he’ll be in town anyway? And, he has Dem morals.

“Bill Maher’s being imported from LA for one night, to emcee a big razzmatazz celebrity-logged Rolling Stone magazine blowout, “An Evening of Sex, Politics and Rock ‘n’ Roll,” co-hosted by Trojan condoms. He’ll do 45 minutes.”
NYPost


28 posted on 08/20/2008 5:32:36 PM PDT by Linden1209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

How about Bill Maher for VP, he’ll be in town anyway? And, he has Dem morals.

“Bill Maher’s being imported from LA for one night, to emcee a big razzmatazz celebrity-logged Rolling Stone magazine blowout, “An Evening of Sex, Politics and Rock ‘n’ Roll,” co-hosted by Trojan condoms. He’ll do 45 minutes.”
NYPost


29 posted on 08/20/2008 5:33:02 PM PDT by Linden1209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinanju

“Unfortunately, nuance vs. straight talk is like scissors vs. rock.”

Excellent.


30 posted on 08/20/2008 5:50:23 PM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sinanju
I’m afraid these times are just too dangerous for us to afford to elect another Clinton or Carter.

A quick look around the block (world) suggests that it's only getting worse. The 'Unfriendlies' are spreading their influence into our hemisphere as I type (time to fire-up the Monroe Doctrine).

Pooty the Punk may yet think back to the timing of his Georgia invasion as the mistake of his career.

That, or he's received information to the effect that Obama will win (from what source is anyone's guess).

31 posted on 08/20/2008 6:26:05 PM PDT by budwiesest (Liberals aren't just dumb. They are devoid of reality and any common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Someone just has to ask some obvious follow ups. How old were you when you lived overseas? How old were you when you studied overseas?


32 posted on 08/20/2008 6:28:26 PM PDT by maro (Repeal the 8th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Indexing related threads:
Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality Of Slavery Ban (Ann Coulter: Bright Nerd Alert)
 
08/20/2008 3:53:01 PM PDT · by goldstategop · 31 replies · 1,149+ views
Ann Coulter.com ^ | 8/20/2008 | Ann Coulter
 

ANN COULTER:CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR OBAMA QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF SLAVERY BAN (For or Against?)
 
08/20/2008 2:58:26 PM PDT · by Syncro · 30 replies · 1,545+ views
AnnCoulter.Com ^ | August 20, 2008 | Ann Coulter

33 posted on 08/20/2008 6:56:28 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

34 posted on 08/20/2008 6:58:56 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2
Could you imagine having the opportunity to sit down and have a conversation with Justice Thomas?

That's something on my bucket list, along with having a conversation with Justice Scalia and fly fishing with Vice President Cheney.

35 posted on 08/20/2008 7:05:42 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (OMG, I lost my tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Just another way he shows he isn't very smart.

When your ancestors and others of your race were the main ones responsible for collecting, selling, and shipping Black people around the world to be used as slaves, I would think it wouldn't be something he wants to realistically deal with.

I guess we have to face it, he doesn't relate to reality much anyway.

36 posted on 08/20/2008 8:53:08 PM PDT by Syncro (Tagline: optional, printed after your name on post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Spokane

Ha! He’d probably put Michelle up to debate her, and then run and hide! Kind of like “Georgy Porridgy” in the old rhyme. Only in this case, it will be when the girls come out to play, Georgy runs away!


37 posted on 08/20/2008 9:50:46 PM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop


38 posted on 08/21/2008 12:05:24 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Thanks RonDog.
You, my friend have followed the rules.

"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."

My emphasis on the part in bold shows just how lax we have become in our prison system.

Sheriff Joe is the closest to following the Constitution in this regard.
39 posted on 08/21/2008 6:22:22 AM PDT by uptoolate (I will be voting for a real conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his.

CHORTLE


40 posted on 08/21/2008 6:24:52 AM PDT by daku (Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: Cargon

Me, too!


42 posted on 08/21/2008 5:49:58 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

It takes a smart person to be funny AND insightful. Obama can’t seem to take a joke or even pretend to be a normal American.


43 posted on 08/23/2008 1:14:50 PM PDT by PghBaldy (Obama is hiding something about his birth, parents or name- but what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...
Note: this topic is from August.
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? ...On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.
and yes, I'm really signing off this time. :')
44 posted on 09/15/2008 12:05:18 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile hasn't been updated since Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson