I do so love the liberals that torture themselves every week by reading my articles. Last week, they got their panties in a bunch over how, by their own "logic", they are still supporters of race-based slavery.
I do so love the liberals that torture themselves every week by reading my articles. Last week, they got their panties in a bunch over how, by their own "logic", they are still supporters of race-based slavery. I went through their argument that because the Supreme Court makes a decision, that decision is automatically correct and just (i.e. Obamacare), and pointed out that Dred Scott was a Supreme Court decision that has never been overturned. Conclusion? Liberals must still support such heinous acts because of those facts. They then spent the next several days sending me all the typical vitriol that they can muster in hundreds of angry emails.
Well, this week I am going to tweak them a little more, show them further how unthinking they are, and unearth the unintended consequences of their unthinking. To do that, we are going to revisit last week's article about the Supreme Court and Dred Scott.
To recap, yes, the thirteenth amendment technically outlaws race-based slavery. But Article I of the Constitution limits the power of Congress to only certain enumerated things as well. Yet liberals ignored that to foist Obamacare upon us. So, if the liberals can ignore the Constitution in one case, because a majority on the Supreme Court stupidly says they can, they can also ignore the thirteenth amendment. Not only can they, but they should for the sake of consistency.
With the standard set, we can now say what liberals really believe based on what the Supreme Court has said in the past. And when it comes to President Barack Hussein Obama, Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm, liberals clearly believe that he is ineligible to be President.
What? Is this some sort of "Birther" conspiracy argument? Not at all. It is an argument based solely on what the Supreme Court has said. Once again, I enter the Dred Scott decision, still on the books, into the record. That decision says that black men, women, and children are not citizens, cannot be citizens, and were never intended to be citizens.
This is problematic because Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution says plainly:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
Uh oh! Dred Scott strikes again!
President Obama, being black, cannot be a citizen of the United States under Dred Scott if we adopt the same liberal "logic" applied to support Obamacare as now, magically, Constitutional. And with liberals proclaiming the Supreme Court as, well, supreme, even when clearly wrong, this means that President Obama, their own messiah, is ineligible to hold the office of the Presidency.
Now, of course, as I have already stated, liberals are obviously not beyond ignoring the Constitution. So, they would probably just choose to ignore this problem that their own logical fallacy has created.
See the bigger problem here? If you do not, I will spell it out for you. I-n-c-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-c-y!
If we just randomly ignore the Constitution, Supreme Court decision or otherwise, why even bother having a Constitution in the first place? Why not just anarchy? Why not just a foolish, pathetic dictator who makes things up as he or she goes along?
Why? Because it is a bad idea. That's why.
But liberals never understand that their ideas are bad. That is why they are liberals. And that is why they get laughed at by all serious people.