pandagon.net

Next entry: If this is wrong, I don’t want to be right Previous entry: The key to good cooking is taking out the food

I Thought “Pickaninny” Was A Perfectly Acceptable Name

• Batsh*t Crazy • Conservatives • Democrats • Liberal Fascism

When Barack Obama says that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed when it was written, he actually has a problem with this obscure part of the Constitution - Article 1, §2, Paragraph 3:

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.

Why does Barack Obama have a problem with apportioning taxes equally among the several states, instead of funneling the wealth of the productive towards the lazy, the indigent and ACORN? Does he not think that Joe the Plumber is as full of a man and as worthy of consideration and his money as Barack Obama’s black friends? This is the truly scary part of Obama’s totalitarian plans - for the first time in our nation’s history, our government will strip people of their very livelihoods and dignity and treat them like chattel.

That Obama would so grossly break with the original text of our beloved Constitution to figuratively (and literally?) enslave hardworking people is the most frightening thing he’s yet proposed. From Raleigh to Louisville to Omaha to Reno, Barack Obama wants to create a “Middle Passage” of our wealth to his coastal welfare-hoarding elites.

How utterly callous and dangerous.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 10:49 PM • (27) Comments

I read that post 5 times over and yeah, there’s no other way to read it but that Kim is offended that Obama is questioning the wisdom of legal slavery.

Comment #1: Amanda Marcotte on 10/27 at 10:54 PM

...so, let me understand something.

I have never been aware that there is any controversy (within the last 100-years at least) about the fact that the 3/5ths Compromise was a flaw in the Constitution from the very beginning. Every history class I’ve taken where it’s been covered, every political discussion where it’s come up, etc. No Controversy.

So The Black Man says something about it and it’s suddenly controversial? WTF?

This seems to fall in line with the wingnut fear that if you admit things are-not/have-never-been 100% peaches-and-cream in America, then the IslamoFascistoMarxists will win…or something…

Grow the fuck up, wingnuts…

Comment #2: MikeEss on 10/27 at 11:29 PM

Well, W and Cheney thought the constitution is fundamentally flawed as well. It made no provision for banning abortion and isn’t nearly as soft as Charmin or Cottonelle.

Comment #3: Ms Kate on 10/27 at 11:32 PM

Apparently, people feel free to yell the N-bomb at Palin rallies without any fear of reprisal from the people around them. I hope Frank Rich is right, and this tactic will backfire across the nation as it backfired against George Allen.

Comment #4: Amanda Marcotte on 10/27 at 11:37 PM

1. Slavery was a perfectly acceptable social/political/economic system in Biblical times.

2. If you question the morality of slavery, you question all of our Western values.

3. Oh, and all men are Socrates.

Comment #5: Roxanne on 10/28 at 12:11 AM

I like the commenter who notes that the Constitution WAS perfect, because it kept them uppity bitches from voting, too, just like them dusky folks. Apparently a constitution that offered equal rights would be “laughed at”—both in the 18th century and now.

wastes of carbon. When society collapses, I’m eatin’ them first.

Comment #6: Well, what? on 10/28 at 12:13 AM

Apparently, people feel free to yell the N-bomb at Palin rallies without any fear of reprisal from the people around them.

I like how they say it when Palin is droning on “the lessons we teach our kids.”

Comment #7: Roxanne on 10/28 at 12:14 AM

When we get enough Constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court, you pinkos will be laughing out of the other side of your arugala holes.

Comment #8: pragmatic idealist on 10/28 at 12:19 AM

So it’s not in the best interests of the rich (business owners? investors?) to ensure the adequate education of the poor (their potential workforce) and thereby create a supply of educated workers who can be more productive than those anywhere else in the world? Where’s the appropriate sense of Republican capitalism?

Comment #9: Bo on 10/28 at 12:21 AM

It’s amazing how much of a blind spot these people have when it comes to that sort of thing. I had to read the post multiple times myself, as generously as I could, just to make sure that the poster had actually written what I thought. You know what the clearest proof that the Framers themselves knew the document was flawed was? The fact that they made it amendable, for fuck’s sake. They knew they’d left shit out and that times would change, and that the needs of the nation would change with the times. (That’s also why it’s one of the most abstract documents I’ve ever seen—it makes John Donne’s poetry look positively imagist by comparison.)

Comment #10: Incertus, Nacho Daddy on 10/28 at 12:23 AM

Despite all claims that capitalism is rational, the rule seems to be that given the choice between waging class warfare on workers and making more money, conservatives will always pick the former.

Comment #11: Amanda Marcotte on 10/28 at 12:23 AM

Hmm…guess those first ten “radical” amendments to the perfect Constitution ought to be thrown out…

Comment #12: Linnaeus on 10/28 at 12:25 AM

That guy was a piece of work, Well, what. I read his comment a few times, and yeah, though he’s vague about it, it’s clear he thinks 18th century values are superior to ours, with their racism and sexism.

Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte on 10/28 at 12:27 AM

“Where’s the appropriate sense of Republican capitalism?”

Buried under the neocon need for absolute control.

Comment #14: preying mantis on 10/28 at 12:33 AM

no, he’s probably just really pissed off about the fact that we directly elect Senators.

Comment #15: Norsecats on 10/28 at 12:52 AM

... and the next thing you know they will be trying to amend the Constitution to keep the homos from gettin’ hitched.

Comment #16: Loneoak on 10/28 at 01:05 AM

Given that they’re already try and tar him as a “socialist- marxist” I guess we shouldn’t be shocked when the GOP tries to hit Obama with every single smear they first ran against King.

Comment #17: Socraticsilence on 10/28 at 04:17 AM

I read them the riot act. Lack of God only knows why I waste my time. I’m too goddamn lazy & its time to get to work.

Comment #18: atheist on 10/28 at 08:18 AM

Nothing like smelling those farts secondhand from reactionary idiots nobody apart from other reactionary idiots bothers to read. Considering the nearness and magnitude of the election, this is like a condemned man choosing four cans of Vienna Sausage as his final meal.

Comment #19: Mr. Merle on 10/28 at 09:54 AM

Over at Volokh, they seem to think that Obama’s comments on constitutional law are mainstream and unexceptional—thsoe guys are conservatives, but they have some real knowledge of constitutional issues:

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_26-2008_11_01.shtml#1225104785

Comment #20: rea on 10/28 at 10:30 AM

Well, of course they do. They’d have to give up the illusion of having any intellectual honesty to suggest otherwise. Even a few commenters at Wizbang realized that agreeing with the post was the equivalent of signing on as a supporter of legalizing slavery in the interest of the “flawless” Constitution.

Comment #21: Amanda Marcotte on 10/28 at 10:46 AM

The people who wrote the Constitution KNEW it was flawed. That’s why they wrote a process for amending it, duh.

It was so flawed they had to pass ten amendments right off the bat.

Comment #22: Ben D. on 10/28 at 11:09 AM

Also the fact that they couldn’t quite bring themselves to put the words “slave” or “slavery” in the Constitution is another big hint they knew it was pretty fucking flawed.

Comment #23: Ben D. on 10/28 at 11:14 AM

Clearly the conservatives/ reactionaries have gone around the bend. Here they are questioning the Constitutional knowledge of someone who lectured at ROBERT BORK’s school. How can anyone, looking at the writing and ratification process, even think this is some kind of received wisdom, eternal from before time?
A bunch of guys are authorized to amend the existing constitution. Instead they junk the whole thing, argue for two months in secret (through a muggy summer), only succeed when they split the difference on several key points, and then several participants leave without signing. After which, key states have to be promised a massive rewrite just sign on and four states come very close to refusing altogether. One only agreed when it was clear that it could survive as an independent country.
But when that dusky fellow says something about its flaws, that’s going too far.

Comment #24: histrogeek on 10/28 at 11:33 AM

Oh, and all men are Socrates.

I know I am.

Wait a minute.. Why does my coffee taste funn-

Comment #25: seeker6079 on 10/28 at 11:37 AM

Well, W and Cheney thought the constitution is fundamentally flawed as well. It made no provision for banning abortion and isn’t nearly as soft as Charmin or Cottonelle.

All that pesky search-and-seizure business, too.

Comment #26: Rick Massimo on 10/28 at 12:32 PM

And seeker wins the internet. Forever.

Comment #27: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster on 10/28 at 02:45 PM

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.