The Supreme Court and a "Living Constitution"

It seems that Senator Obama is described as having one of the most extreme positions that one can find when it comes to the issue of abortion….Normally, I can understand a lawyer’s dancing on the head of a pin for the sake of not wanting to undermine a future legal argument or position. However, regarding Senator Obama, some other details give me pause and raise questions about whether his stated motivation(s) can be trusted.
Obama Would Evidently Throw The Baby Out With The Bathwater found at:
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/obama-would-evidently-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater/

I'm curious to know if Mr. Sekulow disagrees with the Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, or Dred Scott v. Sanford. In the first two the Court "created" rights and in the second it "honored" the intent of Congress.

If you could spare a moment, your thoughts Mr. Sekulow?

You know I have not seen a single response to any comments by Mr. Sekulow. Are we below his realm of intellect perhaps? Is he too busy to care what his supporters and critics think? Kind of disturbing if you ask me.

I'll agree with the commenter who wondered why Mr. Sekulow doesn't respond to questions from these comments. Personally I find Mr. Sekulow repulsive and perhaps that is why he doesn't show his face: he may perceive the reception he'd get. I don't feel that he is worthy of any more respect for his 'intellect' and 'position' than that due anyone else here. This is simply because he is a paid shill for one of the prime perpetrators of the invasion of our Constitution -- Pat Robertson!

His fear of a President Obama and a Vice-President Biden should be palpable -- vast measures are in order to roll back the 'in-roads' already taken by the likes of Sekulow and the EvangiKons, and I have no doubt that both Obama and Biden will seriously assume the task. The FACT that our Constitution was passed and ratified with only a passing, but important, statement denying any governmental influence into any form of 'religion' should be proof enough of its true place in America - a notion only peripheral to governance.

And, YES, the Constitution IS a Living Instrument, especially so because Mr. Sekulow believes otherwise! Remember, he is the 'Shill' and I am just a simple citizen. He believes it is 'Chiseled in Stone' because it benefits him personally, and that is ALL! He's no more Christian than his scary Boss!

Two Points - Barry; No Points - "Jay"

Cara: "I do not have to show respect for a political process of murdering children, which I have heard some murderous individuals of the pro-choice movement as a decision a couple or mother greatly considers as leaving up to them, as to be a responsible choice."

Cara....if we could guarantee that by instituting a series of programs that would result in an increase in your taxes of $100 per year for the rest of your life, we could cut the number of abortions in this nation in half, would you be interested in supporting such a plan?

2000+ unborn children saved a day...for only about 30 cents per day in additional taxes. Would that be a fair exchange in your eyes?

Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia were correctly decided. The Court did not create any new rights but simply upheld the right to be free from invidious racial discrimination expressly provided by the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted shortly after the Civil War, states in relevant part: “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This provision was designed to ensure that state and local governments would not treat African-Americans less favorably than whites, thus denying them the “equal protection of the laws.”

In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Court held that racially segregated public school systems “are inherently unequal” and violate the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 495. The Court held that “the opportunity of an education . . . where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Id. at 493.

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Court invalidated a law prohibiting inter-racial marriage, noting that such provisions “arose as an incident to slavery.” Id. at 6. The Court correctly noted that “[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.” Id. at 10. The Court applied the longstanding principle that “the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the ‘most rigid scrutiny.’” Id. at 11.

The Brown and Loving decisions recognized and applied the compelling interest in eradicating racial discrimination expressly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia were correctly decided. The Court did not create any new rights but simply upheld the right to be free from invidious racial discrimination expressly provided by the Constitution."

Again Jay: The Tenth ammendment makes it clear that all rights are ASSUMED to exist unless otherwise INFRINGED upon by the constitution or other law. The right to be from from racial discrimination is UPHELD by the constitution, not PROVDED by the constitution.

The American Constitution DENIES BLACKS CITIZENSHIP AND COUNTS THEM AS THREE FIFTHS OF A PERSON

Most of the originators of the American constitution were slave owners, and none believed in racial equality for a minute, despite all the subsequent propaganda to the contrary. As with the Amerinds - who were regarded as a completely separate alien nation all to themselves, the writers of the American Constitution - George Washington and others - wrote specific provisions into the original American Constitution to deal with the Black population.

None of the writers of the American Constitution even contemplated Blacks being accorded citizenship or voting rights in the new republic. When the Constitution was drafted at the Constitutional Convention held from 25 May to 17 September 1787, the delegates agreed that the US Congress should be elected on the basis of the size of the population in the various states making up the union - that those states with the larger populations should have more seats than those with smaller populations.

However a dispute arose: as the majority of Blacks were in the Southern states, and were specifically excluded from having the vote, the White leaders from the Northern states argued that the Black population should not be counted for purposes of representation, saying that the number of seats held by Southern states in the lower house of the national legislature should be based solely on their White population.

The White leaders from the Southern states however argued that this method of apportioning seats did not recognize the wealth and importance of their states; they wanted slaves to be counted equally with the Whites - then known by the phrase "free people."

Finally a compromise was reached and written into the Constitution: each Black would be counted as three fifths of a person for purposes of counting the population of a state. Thus it was written into Article 1, Section two of the American Constitution that:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . . .

"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."

The founders of what was to become the most powerful and influential nation in modern history therefore not only refused to grant Black slaves citizenship of their new state, but then went on to only count them as part people. www.white-history.com/hwr52.htm