For a Constitutional Scholar- Obama Fails Miserably At History

[thumbelina]

For claiming to be a constitutional law professor, Barack Obama failed miserably on the historical facts at his talk this week- the most important speech of his political career:

** The United States Declaration of Independence is an act of the Second Continental Congress, adopted on July 4, 1776.

** The Constitutional Convention began May 25, 1787 and ended September 17, 1787 - though Barry Obama says it ended in the spring of 1787.

** Obama also refers to people who came across the ocean at the convention - hogwash - they were men who were born in America. Only eight of the 55 delegates were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, two (Davie and Robert Morris) in England, one (Wilson) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies.

** And, they formed a Republic, not a Democracy. Source (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/for-constitutional-scholar-obama-fails.html)

[PonsAsinorum]

Most politicians on both sides of the aisle would miserably fail a test on early American history and the Constitution. I mean, considering they don't even pay attention to the document, what other conclusion can be drawn? Obama is definitely in good company.

[IHL]

Most politicians on both sides of the aisle would miserably fail a test on early American history and the Constitution. I mean, considering they don't even pay attention to the document, what other conclusion can be drawn? Obama is definitely in good company.Not if you claim to be a constitutional law professor you aren't.

They sure tried to nail Bush of this sort of thing. Were you making excused for him?

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I doubt it. Pons is only interested is creating controversy. Reminds me of Yukon....although Yukon was a blithering idiot of the first sort.

[FKLBRLS]

I believe this may be more sinister than meets the eye. It's telling a lie over and over and over again until it is accepted as truth. The amnesty freaks want to say that all our founding fathers were immigrants because altering that history helps their current cause. Telling everyone we're a democracy when we're really a republic is also an attempt to mislead and trick the American people.

[Dr. Madd]

Most politicians on both sides of the aisle would miserably fail a test on early American history and the Constitution. I mean, considering they don't even pay attention to the document, what other conclusion can be drawn? Obama is definitely in good company.


Leave it to you to defend the democrats. And I think I will.

[Dr. Madd]

I doubt it. Pons is only interested is creating controversy. Reminds me of Yukon....although Yukon was a blithering idiot of the first sort.


And Pons here is a blithering idiot of the second sort.

[Dr. Madd]

I believe this may be more sinister than meets the eye. It's telling a lie over and over and over again until it is accepted as truth. The amnesty freaks want to say that all our founding fathers were immigrants because altering that history helps their current cause. Telling everyone we're a democracy when we're really a republic is also an attempt to mislead and trick the American people.


You know that really is a good point, FK. Everyone should keep correcting him so that somebody will realize that the wool is being pulled.

[i_love_being_so_wicked]

Most politicians on both sides of the aisle would miserably fail a test on early American history and the Constitution. I mean, considering they don't even pay attention to the document, what other conclusion can be drawn? Obama is definitely in good company.

Don't you think they should make politicians take a history test before they can even run for office? I think we should weed out people who don't really know about the history of our country or about the Constitution. Do we really want people like this running our country? Who wants to start writing state legislatures?

[Dr. Madd]

Ask Barack Osama his knowledge of the Koran. I wager it'd be better than his knowledge of American law.

[PonsAsinorum]

Don't you think they should make politicians take a history test before they can even run for office? I think we should weed out people who don't really know about the history of our country or about the Constitution. Do we really want people like this running our country? Who wants to start writing state legislatures?

I don't believe we should do that. The problem with it, as is the problem with all types of competency tests, is that you run the risk of abuse. And the potential abuse would be a far greater danger.

Can you imagine Democrats gaining enough of a majority and making their own brand of "environmental awareness" a prerequisite for holding office? No, it's best that we leave any sort of test out of this, lest it be turned to the advantage of one party over another.

[PonsAsinorum]

Leave it to you to defend the democrats. And I think I will.

How is calling Democrats historically illiterate the same as defending them? Or perhaps you think Republicans are somehow beyond reproach?

[jbeukema]

[
Leave it to you to defend the democrats. And I think I will.

I don't think he meant to defend them so much as point out that he's not the only bastard we need to get rid of..

QUOTE=i_love_being_so_wicked;107933]Don't you think they should make politicians take a history test before they can even run for office? I think we should weed out people who don't really know about the history of our country or about the Constitution. Do we really want people like this running our country? Who wants to start writing state legislatures?[/QUOTE]

THis is where we went wrong with universal suffrage; how many americans think this is a damned Democracy?....




How is calling Democrats historically illiterate the same as defending them? Or perhaps you think Republicans are somehow beyond reproach?


Nowdays most Reps are a bunch od neocons and the Dems are a bunch of socialist bastards...

[earthtoned]

how many americans think this is a damned Democracy?

perhaps by strict standards, this is not a democracy. but by strict standards the is no such thing as a true democracy any more than there exists a true communist society. Our current form of representational government is based on democratic principles. If we are going to continually claim that "the founders never intended a democracy" and that we should adhere to a strictly originalist interpretation of our constitution, i think they should make their stand with the full purity they claim. let's take the vote away from women and all non-land-owners. take it away from all non-whites while you're at it. hell, bring back slavery.

but why the disparaging of democracy? why are we so afraid of the will of the people? there is no law that instructs our leaders to make decisions based on polls. our constitution protects the minority from being overrun by the whims of the majority. but what democracy does is compel involvement and engagement. it gives the population a voice. it may not always be heard, and it may not always be that well informed, but who out there is so omnipotent and all-knowing that they can be the judge of another persons sensibilities, that they should feel just in silencing that persons right to cast a vote?

you want a recipe for revolution, start disenfranchising the legal american voter.

[PonsAsinorum]

perhaps by strict standards, this is not a democracy. but by strict standards the is no such thing as a true democracy any more than there exists a true communist society. Our current form of representational government is based on democratic principles. If we are going to continually claim that "the founders never intended a democracy" and that we should adhere to a strictly originalist interpretation of our constitution, i think they should make their stand with the full purity they claim. let's take the vote away from women and all non-land-owners. take it away from all non-whites while you're at it. hell, bring back slavery.

but why the disparaging of democracy? why are we so afraid of the will of the people? there is no law that instructs our leaders to make decisions based on polls. our constitution protects the minority from being overrun by the whims of the majority. but what democracy does is compel involvement and engagement. it gives the population a voice. it may not always be heard, and it may not always be that well informed, but who out there is so omnipotent and all-knowing that they can be the judge of another persons sensibilities, that they should feel just in silencing that persons right to cast a vote?

you want a recipe for revolution, start disenfranchising the legal american voter.

Let's not forget that the strict originalist view includes Article V of the Constitution. The founders were wise enough to include a process for modifying the Constitution because they understood they would not be able to forsee all future needs of the country. The changes that allowed blacks, women, and non-land-owners to fully participate in government were made in accordance with the strict guidelines for modifying the Constitution, thus they adhere to the originalist view.

Besides, what's so great about democracy? As Orwell stated, it is a meaningless word. Democracy is nothing more than a synonym for "good," even though its true meaning is often ignored. No, democracy, when taken in an involuntary context, is more akin to tyranny than anything else. It's the case where 51% of the people can use something as simple as a vote to give the other 49% a wedgie. And those 49% will take it solely because of a religious adherance to popular dogma. We're spoonfed from the earliest age to believe in democracy's inherent goodness, nevermind the fact that we're bombarded with bifurcative thoughts that shunning democracy is akin to stifling individuality even though the opposite is true. When the voice given to the population is that of oppression and control over others, I don't consider it to be a good thing.

[earthtoned]

ok, i'll go along with your line of thinking for a moment, if you'll indulge me in describing a more practical, effective and peaceful method for a country to both select their leaders and hold them accountable.

[KSigMason]

Of course he fails at history...he's a liberal.

[PonsAsinorum]

ok, i'll go along with your line of thinking for a moment, if you'll indulge me in describing a more practical, effective and peaceful method for a country to both select their leaders and hold them accountable.

The practical solution would be to adhere to the republican framework established a couple centuries ago instead of continuing to concentrate power democratically. We're using more tenets of democracy than ever before, and it's eroded the balance of power.

[Dr. Madd]

Pons: Surprisingly, I agree on this one. Democracies never work.

[jbeukema]

[
perhaps by strict standards, this is not a democracy. but by strict standards the is no such thing as a true democracy any more than there exists a true communist society. Our current form of representational government is based on democratic principles.


Democratic TYPE. the form is Representational Republic


If we are going to continually claim that "the founders never intended a democracy" and that we should adhere to a strictly originalist interpretation of our constitution, i think they should make their stand with the full purity they claim. let's take the vote away from women and all non-land-owners. take it away from all non-whites while you're at it. hell, bring back slavery.

Those practices were njot set up by the constitution; they took place in direct violation of the principles stated and implied within the test. It's like Christians waging wars- especially the catholics with the crusades.. then there were the inquisitions and witch burnings. All of these took place in direct violation of the teaching of their holy text. The same principle applies.. untainted Democracy=mob rule. The classic example is a lynch mob: there's only one dissenting vote, and he's at the end of the rope


but why the disparaging of democracy? why are we so afraid of the will of the people?

Because the masses are fickle shot-term thinkers, and this becomes exaggerated with large numbers. It is in our best interests to choose from amongst ourselves a select few who we believe are best qualified to weigh the issues at hand. This traces back to the village elders we have long turned to across the world. Also, there is too much to worry about- especially nowadays, and most people can't keep track of of it all and not go crazy- let alone lead the rest of their lives and make informed and educated decisions on worldwide affairs. So we entrust certain people to represent our interests based on our believe that they are they best qualified to do so, and reserve the right to strip them of their titles and positions. I much prefer a Representational Republic (ideology- I refuse to comment on the current State at this time) over 'true' Democracy of any great size (Making me a Republican in one of the oldest senses) Bear in mind that Communism is theoretically based also upon rule of the masses, equality- pretty much the same list of attributes those in favor of untainted democracy claim to value.



there is no law that instructs our leaders to make decisions based on polls. our constitution protects the minority from being overrun by the whims of the majority.

Because it is a Republic. Unabashed Democracy offers no such protections.


but what democracy does is compel involvement and engagement. it gives the population a voice. it may not always be heard,

With each party choosing representatives, their voices be heard more easily, bringing balance. And the people, knowing that their leaders can be heard from their positions more than the muttering masses have reason to actively be involved in choosing their representatives- if they're aren't idiots


and it may not always be that well informed

Rule of the uninformed mob, acting on impulse and emotion? That sounds like a riot to me...


but who out there is so omnipotent and all-knowing that they can be the judge of another persons sensibilities,

Not omnipotent. Chosen because the People feel that they share their beliefs and intentions and are the best member of the group to articulate and seek to achieve them


that they should feel just in silencing that persons right to cast a vote?

That would not be our proposed State if that eere to occur. That's what happens in Soviet Totalitarian states...


you want a recipe for revolution, start disenfranchising the legal american voter.

The American People do not know the meaning of the word 'revolution.' And they are growing disenfranchised as the State as it was meant to be never came, and now it strays ever closer to Socialism....



Let's not forget that the strict originalist view includes Article V of the Constitution. The founders were wise enough to include a process for modifying the Constitution because they understood they would not be able to forsee all future needs of the country. The changes that allowed blacks, women, and non-land-owners to fully participate in government were made in accordance with the strict guidelines for modifying the Constitution, thus they adhere to the originalist view.

Correct. They understood that man is flawed (they themselves were far from perfect) and that this combined with the passage of time and turning of events might require that the State should adapt and (hopefully) improve upon itself


Besides, what's so great about democracy?... It's the case where 51% of the people can use something as simple as a vote to give the other 49% a wedgie. And those 49% will take it solely because of a religious adherance to popular dogma.

So it Hitler convinced 51% of the Germans that the Jews had to die... or if I convinced 51% of people that it'd be best for the interest of our town to take all the homes of the black and bulldoze them to make parks... or if 51% of the population was a certain race or gender and we wanted the front seat, the first row, the best jobs... Democracies would be forced to go with the masses...

bifurcating:to cause to divide into two branches or parts I had to look that one up:Pon and control over others, I don't consider it to be a good thing.

QUOTE=PonsAsinorum;108145]The practical solution would be to adhere to the republican framework established a couple centuries ago instead of continuing to concentrate power democratically. We're using more tenets of democracy than ever before, and it's eroded the balance of power.[/QUOTE]

I do disagree on one note. The Administrative Branch seems to be gaining power like the Kremlin and Ifear the the Democracy is an illusion as we play with the conceopt on something of an oligarch or new such form where the people are wooed and appeased but not truly obeyed or followed



Pons: Surprisingly, I agree on this one. Democracies never work.

The closes thing was Greece, and that's not even 100% Democracy or 100% success.

Look at every single issue in the House and Senate. Every one of them. Turn on the world news.... flip throught the newspaper... do you really want the masses deciding on a whim or a guess how to address all of these things?! I cannot possibly track it all, forI am human! SO I along with my companions choose several men , each educated and informed in different of these issues, who share our desires, believes (indeed shared core values and believes are the best guide: name an issue I don;'t know Ron Paul's position on and I'd gve 6:1 odds that I'd agree with him at least 85% on it- this I can say because I feel that he shares many of the same core values and believes that guide his judgment, decision, and leadership) to represent our interests, report back to us, and act as go-betweens between ourselves and the representatives of other masses... It's like the tribal chiefs meeting in a neutral space when two villages need to work things out. Same principle

[namvet]

Osama photo op. he's to stupid to know which end of the phone to use

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/gardenmo/Phonypho.jpg

[jbeukema]

ES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES !YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!
YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YE S!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!
YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YE S!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!
YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YE S!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES
!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!Y ES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES
!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!Y ES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES
!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!Y ES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!YES!

Give him a break, it was 3AM! :p

[earthtoned]

we're arguing about semantics here. i never stated that we should be a pure democracy. I have full confidence in a republican form of government with democraticaly elected leaders. what i thought i was hearing from some, and perhaps it was in error, the attitude that democratic principles are not an integral part of our government and should be disparaged, if not eliminated.


but can we be more clear specifically on voting rights?

anyone here willing to take a stand on whittling down voting rights to the elite?

as for that photo, a more obvious photoshop job i have never seen

[jbeukema]

NO. We all agree in Democratic principles and type. The confusion comes from our belief that you were promoting a Democratic FORM such as the founding fathers were strongly against. It is not semantics, but an important distinction in political theory. Often in politics, as in theology, philosophy, and some sciences, these 'semantics' as you call them make all the difference in the meaning of a statement. That's why politicians choose words carefully for efftect ( a good book on this is Uspeak by Steven Poole)

[ric]

Of course he fails at history...he's a liberal.

Just take a good look at our schools. Our K-12 system

Most do not include even the raw basics of American History and government let alone a study of the whens and whys of the Constitution

Hell, you can even get a college degree without even an overview of a broad topic in American govn or history.