is Obama 3/5 of a man

[foggedinn]

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (from article 1 section 2 of the U.S. constitution)

The above is from the U.S. constitution. To what extent do original language/strict constructionists believe we should go in adherring to the original language of the constitution? Is it "well everything except that" ?

 

[dahermit]

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (from article 1 section 2 of the U.S. constitution)

The above is from the U.S. constitution. To what extent do original language/strict constructionists believe we should go in adherring to the original language of the constitution? Is it "well everything except that" ?

If you have a problem with the original language of the Constitution, you should propose an amendment that nullifies the point of your concern. Just ignoring it would seem to render the whole document pointless.
As for Obama, he is not three-fifths of a person, he is not, or ever was anything but a free man.

 

[SW85]

To what extent do original language/strict constructionists believe we should go in adherring to the original language of the constitution? Is it "well everything except that" ?

You are both (a) ignorant of the constitution, and (b) ignorant of originalism/strict constructionism.

You're ignorant of the constitution because that particular section has been rectified by subsequent amendments (the 14th chief among them).

You're ignorant of strict constructionism because it only requires that we interpret the language of the constitution according to its plain meaning.

Unless you mean to imply that strict constructionism means the constitution alone must be considered and not subsequent amendments, in which case you are doubly ignorant.

 

[SusanConstant]

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (from article 1 section 2 of the U.S. constitution)

The above is from the U.S. constitution. To what extent do original language/strict constructionists believe we should go in adherring to the original language of the constitution? Is it "well everything except that" ?

The founders did not write "slave", "black", "yellow", "red" or "woman" for reasoning. As written in 1776 and 1787 our law is eelgant and does include all persons. Part of this reasoning is the Bill of Rights, part is actual facts of the historical record of Earth and part of this is physics; another part is that the word "man" is inside the word "woman" as a baby is inside its mother and "woman" means "of man". All things are created and then born and this itself is elegance. I do not have the time to reason all of this here but a more complete version of my reasoning is on Scribd.com under the file names Supreme Court Petition: In Re Susan and Equal Protection.

The exact words are very, very important as are the words they did not write. You must examine these docuemtns as a whole and apply the facts of all fileds of study such as physics and Latin. A strict constructionist must consider what he or she cannot see as well as what is actually on the paper. This is what Justice Potter meant when he said "I'll know it when I see it" in regards to pornography. He was actually saying: I'll know when I see it as I'll feel it. An American who is a constitution will actually feel justice as human beings are emotional reasoners - deliberate, knowing and willing - by our very nature.

If Barack Obama believes as fact or true he is only the exact words written on the paper or that he is only the exact words not on the paper - if he actually believes as fact he is that dead piece of paper - then that is all he is: A dead institution of government.

What are you? I believe: You're not a dead instituion as you are deliberately, knowingly and willingly participating in political discourse and asking interesting, provocative questions. You are willing a constitutional government and law into being. I believe as fact you are: Alive. A constitution.

 

[SusanConstant]

Anything written after 1776 & 1787? Be very careful: some is elegant, some is not. Term limits? Only on the President? STRING THEORY, as they violate the separation of powers by removing a check and balance of the people against Congress. Term limits give Congress overly broad power and so then later served to give coroporate interests and the two political parties overly broad power. Term limits are one reason justice - our law - is now bought and sold. Term limits are not elegant!

 

[foggedinn]

You are both (a) ignorant of the constitution, and (b) ignorant of originalism/strict constructionism.

You're ignorant of the constitution because that particular section has been rectified by subsequent amendments (the 14th chief among them).

You're ignorant of strict constructionism because it only requires that we interpret the language of the constitution according to its plain meaning.

Unless you mean to imply that strict constructionism means the constitution alone must be considered and not subsequent amendments, in which case you are doubly ignorant.

It's true, I am ignorant about many things. Even though I've read it, I'm ignorant of many of the nuances of the various sections and amendments to the constitution.

There is something I'm not ignorant about concerning the constitution. Both parties seem perfectly willing to use it as toilet paper when it suits their purposes; and the loyal opposition goes along with it.

It's a piece of paper that will turn to dust and blow away. Anyone putting their faith in it is building a house on sand.