Tom Toles for July 21, 2010

“Obama and Palin have already won

Critics can chew and chafe at Obama’s presidency, and pundits can try to puzzle out the portents of his plummeting approval numbers. Prognosticators can predict how much alliteration I will pack into this pithy post. But the fact remains that even if Obama loses in 2012, which I predict he won’t, he’s already won. He’s had a solid record of real accomplishment, and if his term ended tomorrow, it would still be true. He came to office to get some things done. The U.S. health-care system was on a crazy, irrational trajectory, and Obama has moved it closer to sanity. You can argue all you want about it, but it’s done, he won.

Sarah Palin is something else altogether. Will she run for president? Golly, prolly! Will she win? Prolly not! Does she care? Not so much! Palin is all about becoming a recognized, talked-about public figure. She’s there. She’s already won, too. –Tom Toles”

In the Constitution was a slave 3/5th of a person or 2/3rd of a person?

Also wasn’t a Militia a military organization run by the States, and under the direction and control of the State?

Ken , The militia consisted of every able-bodied male who could carry and fire a weapon. The first question you were asking about is the 3/5 comprmise.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that slavery is accepted. Fredrick Douglas used the Constitution to debate against slavery.

It is worthy of note that Lincoln saw the Declaration of Independence as the central document for understanding the intent of the US, and used that over and over again in his speeches – more so than the Constitution, which was not only less well written but also included a lot of basic operational stuff rather than glorious principles. And there is no doubt that the Declaration was antislavery in every line – that was before Jefferson started rationalizing away his own hypocrisy – especially in the lines they were forced to delete, of course, which explicitly condemned slavery and the British government’s complicity in the trade. To Tom Toles’ point (which I presume is in his blog, not that SuperGriz is himself Toles – unless I’m wrong) - he has an excellent point. A quick look at the “Obameter” is quite astonishing. I hope they do this with every president from now on.

Not only that, it was back in good ol’ days when America adhered to traditional marriage : none of that interracial B.S.

And women knew their place (in the kitchen, barefoot, making babies) and didn’t ruin our country with this “women’s suffrage” B.S. Y’know, just like how only men can be forced to sign up for Selective Service, because the Constitution as it is written only refers to men.

“Leave it to a lib to see black and white then blame someone else as “racist””

Like all of those liberals at Fox News.

Slavery worked out pretty well for the descendants of American blacks, believe it or not. As an economic bloc, black Americans represent the eighth most wealthy nation on the earth! I’m not saying…I’m just saying.

Thousands of white Americans lost their lives in a war that had large amounts to do with abolishing slavery.

Slavery was a contentious and nuanced debate back in the eighteenth century, and it just isn’t fair to judge according to modern standards. We have to study the circumstances about why it happened and be grateful that it is no more. Almost all slaves that came to the West were war captives from Africa. Not exactly “free” men just taken from idyllic lives with their families.

Again, the Constitution was the foundation, and amendments are allowed for within it. Toles has a hard time understanding that, I guess.

If the Constitution was such an anti-slavery document, how come there was slavery until 1865?

Habanero – are you serious? I guess on the same logic the Holocaust worked out pretty well for Jews, too, they got a country out of it.

If there was a contentious and nuanced debate about slavery, which side would you have been on? There were quite a few people then who were able to see that slavery was just wrong.

Maybe if you’re a sex slave……… I mean … err… I’d never… .

Then refutiate the point. But try to understand the point, first.

^ “refudiate*” No bad spelling on my watch.

One thing Americans can appreciate about their constitution is that it has to be adhered to. The President’s job is to uphold it, and you have a supreme court that makes sure laws are constitutional.

The Canadian constitution is as rock solid as last week’s toilet paper. Our constitution has something called the “notwithstanding clause”. What it does is, anytime a politician wants to do something unconstitutional, they just say “notwithstanding” and it’s legal.

Slaves were war captives sent to the West to work, where they could lead lives, raise families, attend religious services, etc…

The Holocaust was about genocide.

Again, slavery = life under oppressive conditions

Holocaust = complete annihilation of life

^^ “Refudiate” is a Palinism, and she would never get anything wrong.

^^^ Then you didn’t understand the point. But your description of slavery in the US is ludicrous, anyway.

“One thing Americans can appreciate about their constitution is that it has to be adhered to. The President’s job is to uphold it, and you have a supreme court that makes sure laws are constitutional.”

I laughed.

“Slaves were war captives sent to the West to work, where they could lead lives, raise families, attend religious services, etc…”

Lest we not forget the ones forced to have sex with their masters if they felt like it… or the ones who were shot if they tried to escape.

I want my country … forward!

The mind boggles. What are the schools teaching? Or perhaps some people’s minds were just elsewhere. Where does one even begin? It’s hopeless.

I don’t know, lonecat, the schools are probably teaching things like “American Slavery was just as bad as the Holocaust.” Seems like something you would hear in the modern classroom.

Slavery was oppressive as a system. Blood ended up being spilled on the battlefield as a result of it. Emancipation proceeded. Toles’ view of the Constitution and its framers is warped.

^ If you really want to compare American Slavery to the European Holocaust lets compare the numbers ~6 million killed during the Holocaust. Around 100 million died during the slave trade.

But why are we comparing the two anyhow? The Holocaust happened in Europe and has nothing to do with our Constitution and Slavery did happen here to people that were considered 3/5 of a man.

@Jade:You laugh? Is it that easy for American politicians to make unconstitutional laws? Do you have a recourse if they do? We don’t.

^ Apparently it’s not very hard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act Massachusetts Federal judges finally started chipping away at it… I’m still waiting.

Oh and Wiki: DADT

Oh, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) (and similar laws) Apparently if you don’t like somebody you can make a rule that violates the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Oh and bigoted things like this: http://www.shewired.com/article.cfm?id=25395 (In case you don’t want to click: the widow of a slain firefighter is having her marriage rights questioned because she is transgender, no “straight” couple has to deal with this stuff).

HARLEY - You are the reason we all love our Conservative posters so much – such great come backs to facts, history, and ideas.

The GOP has no reason to change as long as you Conservatives are around.

Next time I’ll include quotation marks and a link. It’s not that I don’t trust you guys…

I’ll take your word for it that marriage is considered a “right” in the US, because I have no idea. I never considered marriage to be a right, so I never thought of it that way.

But if it is, you do have the legal tools to argue that laws are constitutional/unconstitutional, no?

My point was simply that even if we want to argue against an unconstitutional law, it doesn’t mean anything in Canada because the legal option for a politician is to simply stand up in parliament and say “notwithstanding” and it’s over, f* you, go home, shut up.

Your country on the other hand, has an actual process where people can contest that.

“I’ll take your word for it that marriage is considered a “right” in the US, because I have no idea. I never considered marriage to be a right, so I never thought of it that way.”

It is.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In the second citing, substitute race for gender. There is no non-religious reason for laws such as DOMA (Righties will claim procreation, but as any intelligent person can point out, marriages are not restricted to couples who can AND will procreate. That is, sterile individuals, individuals outside of childbearing age, and couples with no intent to procreate are allowed to do so with no restrictions, which makes this moot). This is a violation of the 1st Amendment, and the 14th.

“But if it is, you do have the legal tools to argue that laws are constitutional/unconstitutional, no?”

Not really. Look how long it took for the Virginia law to be struck down. Look how much people still have to struggle for basic civil rights. We are at the whim of a Conservative majority, which allows them to trample on the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of a minority for reasons of religious oppression. So no… not really.

“Your country on the other hand, has an actual process where people can contest that.”

If Prop 8 gets overturned in court, I’ll start to believe that.

That being said, http://ilga.org/map/LGBTI_rights.jpg Canada’s way ahead of the game when it comes to basic civil human rights.

“Jade, yawn”

You parrot “Fair tax” every other minute and I’ll parrot “equal rights.” I think we have an understanding.

“That is such an old line and you do not even know you are arguing against slavery when you use it. ”

Uh, harley, you have no idea what I do or don’t know.

Such an old line, huh, so, it’s no longer true?

Stick to the fair tax, you appear to understand that.

mdavis4183: “Here’s the thing: Keeping slavery was the compromise that allowed the formation of the United States of America. The southern colonies would not sign on unless America kept slavery.”

True, but not the whole truth. Slavery had been abolished in England proper in 1772. In 1807 England forbade participation in the slave trade. In 1833 slavery was abolished throughout England’s colonies.

The writing was on the wall. Without a 1776 compromise on slavery there might not have been union of the American colonies, but it wouldn’t have been much motivation for the South to remain British.

Oh Tommy this is what we call distortion. You don’t have to think about this very long to figure that out.

The founders knew that the slavery issue couldn’t be dealt with at the time and still have a united country. Sure, the South probably wouldn’t have stayed under the British but they likely would have formed their own country instead. In fact, if you look at the Civil War, that is exactly what they did.

It is such hypocrisy…watching someone exploit race to make their point and call those who do not agree with them “racist”. In fact, those who do exploit a person’s race for any reason is in fact a RACIST themselves.