Big Bush gaffe on Dred Scott: reveals stunning historical/constitutional

[Gabi Hayes]

ignorance

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0410120243oct12,1,1408372.story

read this, and ask yourself why this isn't an issue

for starters, dumbo was INCOHERENT when he tried to answer this. remember?

here:

The recent debates between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have generated plenty of commentary. Democrats claim Bush has been stubborn and inflexible; Republicans insist Kerry can't keep his own positions straight. On the whole, however, the punditocracy pretty much agrees that neither candidate has blundered into a fatal gaffe. But that is only because they were not paying close attention.

In the second debate, Bush was asked whom he would choose to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. After appropriately declining to name an individual, Bush explained that he would not pick judges who attempted to insert their personal opinions into constitutional interpretation. For example, he said, he would not nominate a judge who believed that the words "under God" could not be included in the Pledge of Allegiance. And then the president made this stunning statement: "Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all--you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America." What woeful ignorance of American history.

Alas, the Constitution of the United States--at the time of the Dred Scott case--did indeed protect slavery as a personal property right. Article Four even required the free states to cooperate in returning runaway slaves to bondage.

Mr. President, that is why we had a Civil War. That is why Abraham Lincoln had to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th Amendment was necessary to abolish slavery. And then the 14th Amendment had to be added to guarantee full citizenship and equal protection of the law to the newly freed slaves. This is no small matter. The president must defend and uphold the United States Constitution, so it seems pretty reasonable to expect him to know something about it, not to mention the causes of the Civil War.

[proud patriot]

1. Exactly !

[T Roosevelt]

2. There's speculation it was code for abortion

I believe there's a thread on DU, and it's covered on a bunch of blogs, but Dred Scott is code for abortion.

On edit - here's one:
Debates and Dred Scott

And another:
Dred Scott means Roe v. Wade

[struggle4progress]

6. There's also speculation that the President is not only a cunning ...

... conniver but also an ignorant moron.

[T Roosevelt]

8. No argument there

but he's just a mouthpiece for his masters. Hell, the fact that he screwed up the issue talking about it means he has no clue...

[Pithy Cherub]

3. A History lesson

would not go amiss for all of the occupiers of this White House. Vietnam, 1920, Hoover's presidency and on and on! Dredd Scott was decided based on whether a slave could have 'standing' in a future state as America was chugging along on empire building. pResident no-nothing is entirely ignorant of one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. 2000 being another example.

[madaboutharry]

4. I simply can not understand

why the polls are even. I can not accept the ignorance of the American voter. It is really stunning.

[ClintonTyree]

5. You and me both.............

I'm very close to just giving up on this country. We'll see how things turn out Nov.2 If this country votes the Village Idiot into office for the first time I'm seriously considering leaving this country. Americans are too stupid, really.

[benfranklin1776]

7. The ignorance is even more appalling when you consider his "degree"

This is a person who received a history degree from Yale right?! Yet he is fundamentally ignorant of that entire sordid chapter of American history. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/elections/bushbox.html

Why does that somehow not surprise me. If his class attendance record was similar to that of his guard attendance record then I am sure he was AWOL when they covered the Civil War and its causes.

[Hand]

10. Yeah...

...tells you something about Yale's great intellectual integrity, now don't it? Not to mention Harvard Business School.

:mad:

[arwalden]

9. I'm Nominating This For The Home Page

Thanks for posting it, Gabi.

-- Allen

[TexasBushwhacker]

11. He probably doesn't know the history on this either

" For example, he said, he would not nominate a judge who believed that the words "under God" could not be included in the Pledge of Allegiance."

Does he know that "under God" was not in the Pledge of Allegiance as it was originally written? That it was added during the McCarthy Anti-Commie 1950's after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus?

When I was checking my facts (I knew under God was inserted in the 1950's, but I couldn't think of "Knights of Columbus") I found out something else. The author, Francis Bellamy, was a Baptist Minister and a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. He originally wanted it to end the pledge "equality, liberty and justice for all" but he knew that wouldn't fly with many superintendents of schools at that time, who were against equality for women and African Americans.

Here's the article I read:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

[tom_paine]

12. No gaffe is too huge or ignorant enough for Corproate TV Pravda

to give it the same play as Gore's minor missstatement about James Lee DeWitt.

Our media should be deported to Communist China, where they wouldn;t have to change much of anything to get gobs over there at the ChiCom Channel!

Wouldn't have to change much at all...