Jill Stanek: Obama's constitutional crisis

WorldNetDaily ^ | 1/10/07 | Jill Stanek

[wagglebee]

Barack Obama considers himself a constitutional expert. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. Both are listed in the top 10 law schools in the country.

But don't be fooled. Obama is constitutionally challenged in at least one key area.

Example one comes from Obama's book, "Audacity of Hope" (page 53), where he quoted then misinterpreted the Declaration of Independence:

"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 those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

… [T]he essential idea behind the Declaration – that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can't be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will – is one that every American understands.

Well, not every American, most significantly, Obama.

Obama's choice of the word "born" as his interpretation of the Declaration's launching point for the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness was calculated, obviously to protect his belief in abortion, but, of course, inaccurate.

The Declaration clearly stated these rights commence at "creation." Framers reiterated this point by stating they are endowed by a "Creator."

Worse, Obama attached a string to the 'bundle of rights" with which babies arrive, saying rights can be taken away by a person or a state with "just cause." Many will assume Obama was speaking of the death penalty, but not so fast. Obama has problems with the death penalty. Rather, Obama believes abortion is a "just cause."

Here is what Obama said when arguing against Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act during Senate floor debate. This was legislation clarifying the terms "person," "human being," "child," and "individual" in Illinois statutes included any baby born alive, no matter what gestational age or circumstance of birth:

… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

Incredible stuff. Not only did Obama make no sense, he showed just how far he would go to safeguard abortion.

First, Obama contended age is a determining factor whether constitutional rights apply.

Second, Obama reverse-argued that late-term abortions are already unconstitutional if those babies survive. By claiming a "child that was delivered to term" already had constitutional "protections," but giving those same protections to a child delivered before term would "forbid abortions" of the younger child, Obama was asserting abortion of the older child is already forbidden.

(It would seem Obama intentionally misrepresented this point to his colleagues, since he previously sponsored partial-birth abortion legislation with a health loophole against partial-birth abortion legislation without one. Obama certainly knows abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy up to and throughout the delivery process for almost any reason.)

Three, even if a pre-viable baby survives an abortion, the pregnancy has been terminated. The mother got what she wanted. What more does Obama need, a dead baby? Yes.

Last, Obama's word choices condemned him: "… because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child"? Only if a child is not defined a child can we "allow somebody to kill" her? Obama instinctively knows abortion kills.

Some Catholics use the term "seamless garment" to express their belief that all human life must be protected, from conception to natural death.

Obama's term would be the "seamless abortion garment" to express his belief that all human life must be killed if abortion is intended, from conception to some as yet unpinpointed time after birth.

When is that point, senator?

[wagglebee]

Of course Obama will soon find out the dangers of Arkancide.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[lapdog]

After seeing this can of "whup-ass" opened , I can only say.... OUCH!

[Candor7]

The term,"all men are created equal" needs an historical context.

That context is simply that there would be no recognized nobility, that by virtue of a noble British birth, such a person would have a privileged place in society above other men. The scribes of the constitution were rebeling against a British nobility that sought to recreate the fiefdoms of Europe and their related hierarchy, where the nobility were under a mandate of heaven and noblesse oblige. The founders of our nation rejected that.

So Obama Rama decides that all men are born equal, in substitution of the true historical context. The fact is that such a dedicated , wrongful reinterpretation from one involving social privilege , to a racial parameter, is not only false, but leads our nation into questions of race which the founders never intended. Race simply is an issue om which our founders were silent, but we know that their view was a powerfully fraternal one. Therefore Obama makes the mistake of defining himself as a noble of the racial minority. For this he should be put upon the rack of his own inept interpretation, and laughed out of the courts of the free. Sorry Obama, you and your liberal running dogs are not nobility, and here in this nation of free men, nobility of any sort is not recognized!

Not only is this disingenuous, it is simply self serving, and devoid of the history to which we must adhere as intelligent, sentient beings, dedicated to freedom.

[Waco]

Fergit it Obama, ya ain't getting an abortion. Ya ARE an abortion!!

[therut]

Well he can not read the 2nd amendment either.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks, Waggs.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[cpforlife.org]

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[T'wit]

You are exactly right, the Declaration was a ringing rejection of Old World feudalism and classes based on birth.

But did it work? Think of the disproportionate political influence of the Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy and now Bush families. We seem to have regrown a hereditary ruling class.

For my two cents, that's because we have allowed government to do 'way too much ruling! This sort of thing attracts a decidedly inferior sort to public service.

[Candor7]

You are right of course, we have recently had a family dynasties of politicians, Bush, Kennnedy, and now the Clinton " We are the president" dynasty.Thank goodness they can only claim 4 years at a time.

But Obama's tsake is really interesting. Using every one is "born equal" out of historical context instead of "all men are created equal", he himself is claiming access to that discarded nobility, as a putative noble.

For that reason, people should be very wary of him. I have a feeling he could easily become a dictator. For an alleged constitutional law scholar and professor, he sure has some pretty sophomoric ideas about the Declaration of Independence.

After all I was born equal to Ronald Reagan, and therefore proclaim my equality by running for the presidency. I am the best noble of them all!!!!!!

I look forward to more of Obama's twisted ideology, so we can laugh him back to his childhood, Indonesian madrassa.

[Salvation]

**Barack Obama considers himself a constitutional expert. **

LOl! I don't think so!

[T'wit]

>> he himself is claiming access to that discarded nobility, as a putative noble.

They all do, y'know. And they are treated like nobility the world around. When Hillary visited Africa during her husband's reign, the simple-minded natives hailed her as the queen of the world -- which, of course, they picked up from our slavish, butt-kissing American media.

My trademarked view is that there is only one form of government -- too much. There is always a ruling class screwing everyone else (and screwing up the country in the bargain). The only important question is how much screwing they get to do. Hold the state down to minimal size and you'd never hear of Obama. If you did, he'd be a citizen, not a noble.