EAllusion wrote:For the record, you were the one grasping at straws. For what it is worth, you are suggesting that instead of a simple misspeak that it easily could be, a person who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, specifically related to the subject being discussed no less, lacks a highschooler's understanding of the same. And when it is pointed out how unlikely that is, the equivalent of a college grad in geography thinking there are 57 states, you presumably endorse Kevin G's position that this was all handed to him because he is black and he's really an empty suited moron. Again, for the record.
You say that it is a simple error on Obama's part. I disagree. Where has he demonstrated a sophisticated knowledge or understanding of the Constitution. He hasn't written any peer reviewed law articles (unusual give his post at the Harvard Law review).
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2008 ... atedl.html I read one of his final exams at UC and it was almost all politics. Historian Greg Singer used to make cracks about little Harvard Law grads knew about colonial constitutional history.
Here’s the quote from the 2004 senatorial debate
OBAMA: Listen, I love my colleagues in the state legislature, but I think you should be voting for your United States Senator, not my colleagues. You know, I have a little understanding of the Constitution, since I teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and I understand that, in fact, that was the original way that the Constitution was framed.
It also prohibited anybody other than white, male property owners from voting. That's why we had amendments, so that black people and Asians and women could vote. It strikes me a funny way to empower people, to take their vote away.
Note that BHO appeals to his authority as a teacher of constitutional law at UC. He then makes repeated mistakes as I realized at the time (I was listening to the debate as it occurred). Perhaps he should read less Saul Alinsky and more of Thomas West. Obama states that the Constitution "prohibited anybody other than white, male property owners from voting". That is false. It left it up to the states and
some states allowed freed blacks and women to vote at the time. Obama is wrong.
I am cautious about using Wikipedia but I've read more reliable sources about voting in New Jersey.
New Jersey granted women the vote (with the same property qualifications as for men, although, since married women did not own property in their own right, only unmarried women and widows qualified) under the state constitution of 1776, where the word "inhabitants" was used without qualification of sex or race. New Jersey women, along with "aliens...persons of color, or negroes," lost the vote in 1807, when the franchise was restricted to white males, partly in order, ostensibly at least, to combat electoral fraud by simplifying the conditions for eligibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrageFree blacks could vote in Massachusetts.
As discussed in the section of this website entitled John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution, the Constitution of 1780 was preceded by a constitution drafted by the legislature and rejected by the voters in 1778. The constitution proposed in 1778 would have recognized slavery as a legal institution, and excluded free African Americans from voting. The Constitution of 1780, in contrast, contained a declaration that "all men are born free and equal, and have . . . the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties."
http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/constitu ... ery-b.htmlNote that Obama stated that, “It strikes me a funny way to empower people, to take their vote away.” Where in the world were women allowed to vote in 1787? One can only take a right that people currently have.
EA says that this is a mere slip of the tongue by Obama. A person who appeals to his authority as an expert should not immediately make such a gross error.