Does anyone have a page number for this quote in Obama's book?

But Obama revealed his constitutional blind spot in his book The Audacity of Hope:

Constitution says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [emphasis added] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Obama says:… (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration — that we are born [emphasis added] into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will — is one that every American understands.

As a Constitutional scholar, Barack Obama wouldn't confuse the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence as you have done.

Obama 08!

Color it as you may. Semantics aside, I believe in the "created" version and find the "born to" anathema to my core belief system. When we are "created" we can't have rights taken away like they can be for others that were merely born to them.

Plus, Barack Obama thinks kindergardeners need sex education. What!?! Even with his way late addendum "of age appropriate of course" caveat it makes no sense. I originally thought he is just pandering to the Family Planning crowd he was speaking to.

No, I fundamentally think differently than Obama does. My vote is finally lost to Obama.

He was probably referring to the type of program implemented in Massachusetts kindergartens under Governor Romney.

Like you've made a point.

Your "created" verses "born to" distinction has no legal significance or semantic weight.

American citizens are human beings who have been born in the United States (or, in limited circumstances, to American citizens abroad). Thus, the rights of American citizens as American citizens are those that we are "born to". Obama is saying that these rights -- these Constitutional rights -- are not alienable or subject to debate or legislation. This is very sound, and very strong, civil rights legal theory.

If you are looking for a pro-life Thomistic natural rights theorist, who will have to look long and hard before you find a single one in the Democratic Party. There are very few in the Republican Party as well (mostly because the GOP's thinking is more muddled than Thomistic thinkers thinking ever is).

However, as an American legal matter -- the Declaration of Independence is not law. We have the rights we are born to as Americans -- and first among those are those rights the Constitution gives us. The critical point is whether we want a President (such as Obama) who will take those rights seriously and defend them or a President (like the current one -- and like McSame) who won't.

Beathan

You are stressing the wrong verb. "Created" is the same as "born".
It is only after their creation that they are "ENDOWED" with inalienable rights is the word you need to pay attention to and the word that carries more weight.

"Plus, Barack Obama thinks kindergardeners (sic) need sex education."
That's outrageous. Obama is for age appropriate sex education to give kids the knowledge and support they would need to protect themselves from sexual abuse and predators and ultimately breaking the cycle of kids have kids?

But we were talking about the Federalist Papers and how they Lincoln read them in Gettysburg, right?

This beyond any point you can make.

Fetuses that survive the process of abortion, born alive, are created equal. Apparently in Illinois Obama had legislative prerogatives against this basic premise I subscribe to. This along with the weight of many other things has tipped the balance. Obama isn't good enough to be president. Maybe McCain isn't either but a Republican president and a Democratic congress at this point are in my best interest.

This is beyond legal for me. It is philosophical. Without a creator (real or imagined) there is no reason the state can't take away inalienable rights.

This among many other staws....

Spiker --

If you are a pro-life voter, you would not vote for any candidate who has the support of NARAL. Obama does. Clinton would have if she had been the nominee. So would any of the Democrats (as none of the pro-lifers in the party (Casey; Reid) ran this year).

Ergo - -you were either going to vote for the Republican (here the half-pro-life McCain) or a true believer (you have one in Barr) -- but you were not going to vote for the Democrat in any case.

This is the problem with single issue voters. They put real policy beyond debate -- plunging us into the dismal politics of idees fixe.

Beathan

You're problem is you stereotype voters.

You assume they don't go on many issues and finally break one way or the other based on a weighted average. I have been for reasonably regulated early abortions for some time.

Now I'm for a Republican president and a Democratic congress.

"This is beyond legal for me. It is philosophical. Without a creator (real or imagined) there is no reason the state can't take away inalienable rights."

To me, and most people, create is to born as renounce is to reject.
Create comes from the latin creatus meaning to produce and born comes a hybrid of baren, from the Old High German, and bher, from Proto Indo European languages. Both mean to give birth or produce.

So again, I'm not seeing the distinction between the two words. So you are the one arguing semantics if you are separating create from born. And claiming you don't like a man because he, in your mind, used the wrong verb.

What I'm seeing is that MAN, not just a man, has inalienable rights ENDOWED to him through all time and not just us as a nation but all peoples (that is why so many fledgling democracies have cribbed from the DOI). And that is what Obama seemed to be emphasizing.

By the way, the bill you speak of from Illinois was a trojan horse that would have taken away a lot of the choice you say you are for.

You really got to be more discerning in your sources if you are going to be so discerning in words.

What Republican President do you think you are going to vote for, McCain? Ha! Stanch Republicans will tell you that McCain is NOT a real Republican.

I'm for well regulated choice. Which is probably more restrictive than you'd appreciate.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade it is okay with me. Let the states or the nation pass constitutional amendments concerning abortion.