I was not so much defending her as I was pointing out that she could have used a different example (as I did in an earlier post) to express her concern, one that would have not been so inflammatory.

Who blamed Sen McCain for anything? Certainly not me. If anything, as I did with Whoopi, suggested that Sen McCain find a different way of approaching the issue to avoid potential confusion. It is not his fault that Whoopi did not understand what he meant by original intent. It was a teachable moment and he could have educated her.

Avoid responsibilty? Absolutely not, you are the Captain of your own Ship, and you (the individual) are always responsible for your actions.

NJ Aviator,

The mechanics of Ammending the Constitution are understood. And, who was looking to Whoopi for constitutional advice?

Moreover, the following is in the original. Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 1. Exactly who does that apply to?

Yes, the Constitution has been ammended … from the original. That is why I asked the question, ‘what is meant by original intent?’

“Amendments ARE part of the original intent of the Constitution.”

Nope, words have meaning, and what you meant to say is that the original Constitution as written, allows for the introduction of ammendments. There is a difference.

I happen to think it’s worth preserving. It IS part of our culture, after all. Immigrants (alien or otherwise) aren’t the only ones who are allowed to be proud of their heritage.

As to the issue of deportation of illegals, I’m all for that, as well.

Rule of Law means abiding by laws all of the time or ignoring laws all of the time. There is no in between.

I know everyone’s mad at Whoopi Goldberg for asking that question, but she was simply articulating a common fear that people have about strict constructionism, and it’s a fear that right-wingers must address, particularly if we are going to assert……

zyzzyg said:

What is meant by original intent and what would it mean to our current society? Realize that we have had several Ammendments to address many issues. Does original intent mean viewing the Constitution without the Ammendments?

That is by far the most ridiculous and simplistic interpretation of the phrase “original intent” that I think could be conjured up.

And you do realize that the President has no power to create a new amendment or repeal an existing one right?

These statements by Whoopie Goldberg and whomever fed it to her, are an attempt to scare moderates and minorities into thinking McCain wants to enslave them and force them into religious servitude. Which is non-sense.

Original intent… since you asked… is a vision evoked from the Constitution… specifically, from the Preamble.

Here it is in case you forgot the words.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

An incredible passage. The fact that it’s an integral part of how we govern ourselves is just one of the amazing and unique things about America.

Read further… Article V is the part of the Constitution that allows for amendments to it. It is -so significant- that it immediately follows the definitions of the branches of our gov’t and that of the states.

Amendments ARE part of the original intent of the Constitution. The President, aside from having an opinion, has no say in the formation or repeal of any constitutional amendments.

The Constitution defines our gov’t, its role and limits. When injustices or problems are identified, both houses and the states can attempt to add a component to the Constitution to correct the problem.

In the future… if constitutional issues come up… please look to someone other than Whoopie Goldberg for professional advice.

“I’ve been to Africa, and I ain’t African.”

There’s a huge truth in that statement too powerful for the politically correct victimization set to digest. The reality is, she isn’t African. She’s a successful American. She, of course, was villified by black activists and has charted a very liberal course since.

On September 14th, 2008 at 8:49 pm, zyzzyg said: Based on Whoopi’s comment she took the meaning of original intent as first written, and not as ammended.

As originally written the “African Americans” were afforded full rights the same as the rest of the inhabitants of the newly formed United States. The Southerners did not want to give up the practice of slavery as they needed it to keep their economic standing in place. A compromise was enacted even though Washington, Adams and Madison did not want to. In order to keep the Union together the compromise had to go through and the founding fathers understood this. The United States was a fledgling nation and any divison would weaken it and expose it to outside aggression. By the way, it was the Southern Democrats who came up with the 3/5 person for each slave. They were gerry mandering even then.

An in depth study of the history of the United States is very enlightening.

Saying it either way would have avoided Whoopi going outside the box and off the deep end.

Or, like a normal adult, she could have just asked him to clarify much like you just did. Instead, she went for the deranged Trinity angle.

Why are you determined to defend her idiotic behavior? There was no excuse for it. Blaming McCain’s response for her idiotic behavior fits in with the idea that all liberals are victims, I guess. Avoid responsibility for your actions at all costs, right?

Rob. Good points

I don’t hear that much here. Thank you.

Thank you for answering the question.

Since the answer is ‘no’ then the next time Sen McCain speaks on the issue of original intent of the Constitution he should explain that it includes the Ammendments. There is nothing wrong with expanding your remarks to make yourself better understood.

Based on Whoopi’s comment she took the meaning of original intent as first written, and not as ammended. Though to avoid any misunderstanding, I prefer the term ‘strict constructionist.’ The advantage is that there is an economy of words vice saying, ‘original intent of the constitution as ammended.’

Saying it either way would have avoided Whoopi going outside the box and off the deep end.