Comments on: Do Strict Constructionists Wish to Bring Back Slavery?

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:51:07 +0000

No worries…we’re doing about as well as we can these days. The concern is appreciated, thank you.

By: Stephen Littau

Stephen Littau — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:36:21 +0000

Sorry about your mom U.C. Let us know how you (and your mom) are doing from time to time okay?

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:06:32 +0000

Kind of dropped off the grid for awhile and restricted any online blogging to football for the forseeable future. Job stuff and my mom got really sick (terminal cancer) so I’ve kind of had other things on my mind these days. But I’ve popped in from time to time and I’ll be back eventually :)

By: Stephen Littau

Stephen Littau — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:28:29 +0000

Hey U.C., where have you been? Haven’t heard from you in awhile.

No, I don’t think that Whoopi has any understanding of the Constitution at all. If she did, she wouldn’t have asked such an idiotic question.

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:30:43 +0000

What Whoopi fails to understand (and what Sen. McCain failed to explain) is that the founders themselves knew that the Constitution as written was not perfect and would have to change over time via the amendment process

You’re assuming that Whoopi takes the time to actually understand the nuances of policy and the Constitution before running her mouth about it, which would be a somewhat rare trait for a celebrity…particularly on “The View” :)

By: Justin Bowen

Justin Bowen — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:22:52 +0000

Wow, he really made zero effort to explain it to her (and her audience). What was he thinking?

Could it be that McCain didn’t know how to respond because he doesn’t know what’s in the Constitution?

By: joephus

joephus — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:46:03 +0000

What a train wreck. Whoopi’s and McCain’s statements were uneducated. I really wish one of the ladies responded to his “strict constitutional interpenetration” comment by asking if that also means he’s for the abolition of anti-constitutional government agencies and programs like the war on drugs and the Federal Reserve.

By: Wulf

Wulf — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:20:38 +0000

Wow, he really made zero effort to explain it to her (and her audience). What was he thinking?

Of course, the Left has been wailing about Roe-v-Wade since Reagan took office (maybe earlier, I don’t remember). They are perpetually convinced young women will be bleeding to death in back alleys soon. Even if Roe-v-Wade is ever overturned, it’s not going to have the impact everybody thinks it will.

Allow me to shamelessly point us all to my own archives:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/archives/2005/07/replacing_oconn_1.php