Constitutional Professor?

[PoliticalChic]

Did Obama Confuse the Constitution With the Declaration of Independence?

C-SPAN
Friday, January 29th, 2010

“We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal…”

GatewayPundit: Um, wrong founding document, Mr. President. It is in our Declaration of Independence that we read:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/did-oba...ion-with-the-declaration-of-independence.html



[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2uVZHZmkb58&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2uVZHZmkb58&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[froggy]

Was that put in for his illegal immigrant supporters?

 

[ihopehefails]

I've noticed it to but what people don't realize is that phrase is an acknowledgment of natural rights. It says man is created equal by the creator which is assumes that equality only exist in nature and not something that created by the government. The next time someone says that we have to be equal then just tell him that in order to do that we have to remove government completely because government has created more inequality than nature. Governments declares some citizens are immune from laws, get to make laws, and what citizens get rich or poor.

That does not sound like equality to me.

 

[Sinatra]

I've noticed it to but what people don't realize is that phrase is an acknowledgment of natural rights. It says man is created equal by the creator which is assumes that equality only exist in nature and not something that created by the government. The next time some liberal says that we have to be equal just tell him that in order to do that we have to remove government completely because government has created more inequality in society because it says some citizens are immune from laws, get to make laws, and what citizens get rich or poor.

That does not sound like equality to me.

Very well said.

There is a fundamental divide between those who believe, as the Founders did, that government is there to protect the fundamental rights of the people, and not that the people are there to serve and protect the fundamental rights of the government - And that service to the people by the government is to limit as much as possible, the intrusion of government into people's lives.

 

[rdean]

Is it against the law to make laws against an identifiable group of Americans? Meaning, is it lawful to deny blacks the right to drink at public drinking fountains? Of course not.
So that sounds an awful lot like "equality".

That's the way they get around laws against the gays. If you pretend it's a "choice", then you don't need "equal protection", like, say, in the military or marriage.

 

[lawbuff]

Maybe the equality he was speaking of is the EP clause of the 14th AM??

Or, it could be a slip, like this quote I remember from Clinton.


"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

President Bill Clinton, campaigning October 17, 1996. From a campaign speech given in California. Quoted in Investor's Business Daily October 25, 1996

In one quip he says it is the Constitution, then he says, it is the Declaration? In the same sentence? Which is it?

None, actaully, the phrase is from the Gettysburg address, and also quoted in the Americans Creed.

Constitutional law, however, does say we have a right to the "orderly pursuit of happiness".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe the equality he was speaking of is the EP clause of the 14th AM??

Or, it could be a slip, like this quote I remember from Clinton.


"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

President Bill Clinton, campaigning October 17, 1996. From a campaign speech given in California. Quoted in Investor's Business Daily October 25, 1996

In one quip he says it is the Constitution, then he says, it is the Declaration? In the same sentence? Which is it?

None, actaully, the phrase is from the Gettysburg address, and also quoted in the Americans Creed.

Constitutional law, however, does say we have a right to the "orderly pursuit of happiness".

Are you suggesting that Democrats are not conversant with the great documents of the United States???

 

[lawbuff]

Are you suggesting that Democrats are not conversant with the great documents of the United States???

Jefferson was a democrat -republican and he penned the DOI.

 

[Article 15]

Maybe the equality he was speaking of is the EP clause of the 14th AM??

Or, it could be a slip, like this quote I remember from Clinton.


"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

President Bill Clinton, campaigning October 17, 1996. From a campaign speech given in California. Quoted in Investor's Business Daily October 25, 1996

In one quip he says it is the Constitution, then he says, it is the Declaration? In the same sentence? Which is it?

None, actaully, the phrase is from the Gettysburg address, and also quoted in the Americans Creed.

Constitutional law, however, does say we have a right to the "orderly pursuit of happiness".

Are you suggesting that Democrats are not conversant with the great documents of the United States???

Is Bill Clinton "the Democrats?"

 

[Article 15]

Are you suggesting that Democrats are not conversant with the great documents of the United States???

Jefferson was a democrat -republican and he penned the DOI.

Don't mind PC ... according to her liberals/dems are responsible for all the ills in the world.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I love it when people try to make a big deal out of mistakes. I don't know if he confused the two - but really, WHO THE FUCK CARES? It's just like the 57 states thing - Presidents are people too - and people are allowed to misspeak.

Life will be much easier when you realize that Obama is a person too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you suggesting that Democrats are not conversant with the great documents of the United States???

Jefferson was a democrat -republican and he penned the DOI.

Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, a party which is unrelated to the Democratic Party.

To find the parentage of the Democratic Party you must look to the seventh President.

The two earliest parties were the Democratic-Republicans, and the Federalists.

Federalists.
, Hamilton’s supporters
banking and merchant interests in New England and along the seaboard
, mainly Congregationalists and Episcopalians
emphasized the executive branch
Hamilton was pro-British

Democratic-Republicans.
Jefferson, Madison and their supporters
Southern planters and farmers
often Baptists and Methodists
many states-rightists
legislative branch
Jefferson opposed the British.

 

[froggy]

Are you suggesting that Democrats are not conversant with the great documents of the United States???

Jefferson was a democrat -republican and he penned the DOI.

Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, a party which is unrelated to the Democratic Party.

To find the parentage of the Democratic Party you must look to the seventh President.

The two earliest parties were the Democratic-Republicans, and the Federalists.

Federalists.
, Hamilton’s supporters
banking and merchant interests in New England and along the seaboard
, mainly Congregationalists and Episcopalians
emphasized the executive branch
Hamilton was pro-British

Democratic-Republicans.
Jefferson, Madison and their supporters
Southern planters and farmers
often Baptists and Methodists
many states-rightists
legislative branch
Jefferson opposed the British.

How do you suppose it would be if we had a Democratic-Republican as president today?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Jefferson was a democrat -republican and he penned the DOI.

Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, a party which is unrelated to the Democratic Party.

To find the parentage of the Democratic Party you must look to the seventh President.

The two earliest parties were the Democratic-Republicans, and the Federalists.

Federalists.
, Hamilton’s supporters
banking and merchant interests in New England and along the seaboard
, mainly Congregationalists and Episcopalians
emphasized the executive branch
Hamilton was pro-British

Democratic-Republicans.
Jefferson, Madison and their supporters
Southern planters and farmers
often Baptists and Methodists
many states-rightists
legislative branch
Jefferson opposed the British.

How do you suppose it would be if we had a Democratic-Republican as president today?

The question is interesting, but, as always, it requires a definition of terms.

Would that be subsequent to the 20th Century, i.e. now, or are you considering a President with the interests and input listed above?

Probably a lot easier to be a President whose balancing involves, mainly , two alternatives, vs. the myriad interests in the country today, plus geopolitical considerations.

I take it you like Jefferson.

 

[froggy]

Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, a party which is unrelated to the Democratic Party.

To find the parentage of the Democratic Party you must look to the seventh President.

The two earliest parties were the Democratic-Republicans, and the Federalists.

Federalists.
, Hamilton’s supporters
banking and merchant interests in New England and along the seaboard
, mainly Congregationalists and Episcopalians
emphasized the executive branch
Hamilton was pro-British

Democratic-Republicans.
Jefferson, Madison and their supporters
Southern planters and farmers
often Baptists and Methodists
many states-rightists
legislative branch
Jefferson opposed the British.

How do you suppose it would be if we had a Democratic-Republican as president today?

The question is interesting, but, as always, it requires a definition of terms.

Would that be subsequent to the 20th Century, i.e. now, or are you considering a President with the interests and input listed above?

Probably a lot easier to be a President whose balancing involves, mainly , two alternatives, vs. the myriad interests in the country today, plus geopolitical considerations.

I take it you like Jefferson.

I'd like to see someone get in there and do something to better this country. And start the gov. in a new way of thinking.

 

[ihopehefails]

Is it against the law to make laws against an identifiable group of Americans? Meaning, is it lawful to deny blacks the right to drink at public drinking fountains? Of course not.
So that sounds an awful lot like "equality".

That's the way they get around laws against the gays. If you pretend it's a "choice", then you don't need "equal protection", like, say, in the military or marriage.

Jim Crow were laws which created a lot of inequality. How do you explain that?

Those drinking fountains were already government property so the government created that inequality.

As for equal protection...well your use of that is moot because its like applying the commerce clause to justify gay marriage.

 

[code1211]

Is it against the law to make laws against an identifiable group of Americans? Meaning, is it lawful to deny blacks the right to drink at public drinking fountains? Of course not.
So that sounds an awful lot like "equality".

That's the way they get around laws against the gays. If you pretend it's a "choice", then you don't need "equal protection", like, say, in the military or marriage.

Living in a barracks is different than than riding a subway or sitting in church.

It's perfectly okay to have co-ed buses and churches. Co-ed barracks is a different thing. So, too, would be barracks with gays and straights.

Equal protection really does not apply in this for the military. A lifestyle choice of the nature of the military requires a forfieture of rights by all. When both genders intermingle at all levels in the military, then openly gay folks will fit right in. Maybe experiment with this in the San Francisco National Gaurd station.

Legal unions is a different matter.

 

[Misty]

Is it against the law to make laws against an identifiable group of Americans? Meaning, is it lawful to deny blacks the right to drink at public drinking fountains? Of course not.
So that sounds an awful lot like "equality".

That's the way they get around laws against the gays. If you pretend it's a "choice", then you don't need "equal protection", like, say, in the military or marriage.

let's focus on today not 50 years ago.

Susan Sarandon, who can annoy me at times but I loved her in rocky horror picture show, said, me paraphrasing, that she thinks marriage in general is hooey and I tend to agree. There are pitfalls.


You can spin the constitution. Just like women who want abortions have the right to privacy but rushimbaugh does not.