PDA

View Full Version : Legal Are there any constitutional amendments that are unconstitutional?


jAZ
04-03-2009, 05:10 PM
An example tha to feed the tin-foil hat crowd...

Let's say that the Congress passes & the president signs and states ratify an amendment to the US Constitution to ban all citizens from owning any kind of gun.

Or a more extreme example... an amendment that says all hispanic or black babies be executed at birth.

Would it be an act of judicial activism to deem an amendment unconstitutional? Is that even possible? Or is another amendment the only way to reverse it?

Hydrae
04-03-2009, 05:13 PM
I believe if it has gone all the way through ratification it becomes part of the Constitution. Thus, by definition it can not be unconstitutional at that point.

banyon
04-03-2009, 07:14 PM
The only thing that can make an Amendment unconstitutional is if it is improperly ratified as far as I can think of.

If the Amendment conflicts with an existing constitutional language or another Amendment, then the more recent Amendment takes precedence, much like the 13th Amendment did not expressly overrule the "3/5" of a vote rule for slaves, but to make sense of it, you have to strike the offending language.

orange
04-03-2009, 07:58 PM
You have to remove it with another Amendment. Like Prohibition-Repeal.

That's for the U.S. Constitution.

For states, it can be different. California has different requirements for Amendments depending on whether they make fundamental changes. That's why their Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment has been challenged.

alnorth
04-03-2009, 08:48 PM
Yep, basically what Banyon said. When amendments conflict, its basically First in, First out.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 09:41 AM
I think an argument can be made that the 16th Amendment violates some of the Bill of Rights.

patteeu
04-04-2009, 10:25 AM
No, an amendment can not be unconstitutional no matter how offensive or contrary to the original intent of our founders or in opposition to previous provisions of the constitution it is.

orange
04-04-2009, 10:54 AM
No, an amendment can not be unconstitutional no matter how offensive or contrary to the original intent of our founders or in opposition to previous provisions of the constitution it is.

Take for example the 13th Amendment which completely contradicts and overrules huge chunks of the original document and the Founders' intent.

patteeu
04-04-2009, 11:07 AM
Take for example the 13th Amendment which completely contradicts and overrules huge chunks of the original document and the Founders' intent.

Absolutely.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 12:11 PM
Take for example the 13th Amendment which completely contradicts and overrules huge chunks of the original document and the Founders' intent.

I don't see that. Like what? It abolished slavery. I think it reinforces the Constitution's original intent.

patteeu
04-04-2009, 12:13 PM
I don't see that. Like what? It abolished slavery. I think it reinforces the Constitution's original intent.

:spock: You think the original intent of those who drafted the Constitution was, in part, to abolish slavery? I must be misreading your post.

orange
04-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Slavery certainly WAS original intent.


The Constitution has often been called a living tribute to the art of compromise. In the slavery question, this can be seen most clearly. The Convention had representatives from every corner of the United States, including, of course, the South, where slavery was most pronounced. Slavery, in fact, was the backbone of the primary industry of the South, and it was accepted as a given that agriculture in the South without slave labor was not possible. Though slaves were not cheap by any measure, they were cheaper than hiring someone to do the same work. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and tobacco required slaves to work the fields from dawn to dusk. If the nation did not guarantee the continuation of slavery to the South, it was questioned whether they would form their own nation.

Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, but uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.

In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."

It has been said that the seeds of the Civil War, which was fought, despite revisionist theory to the contrary, over the issue of slavery, were sown in the compromises of the Constitution on the issue. This is probably true. Slavery, which was started in violence in the kidnapping, shipment, and commerce of human chattel, needed violence to bring it to an end. After the devastation of the Revolutionary War and the unrest in the U.S. under the Articles, a time of peace and recovery was needed to strengthen the nation to a point where it could survive a civil war. The greatest tragedy is that in the nearly 100 years between the start of the Revolutionary War and the end of the Civil War, millions of slaves served, suffered, and died so that the nation could prosper.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html#const

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 12:39 PM
:spock: You think the original intent of those who drafted the Constitution was, in part, to abolish slavery? I must be misreading your post.

I asked Orange to show me the "huge chunks of the original document" that protects involuntary servitude was all. Until then I don't see that case.

So I will ask you to show me where the Constitution specifically sanctions slavery or "huge chunks of the document" supporting it rather than just not having the Federal govt address it much due to the document mainly being a restraint on the Federal govt.

That was an issue the Founders didn't really settle in a terminatedly fashion at the Constitutional Convention. But the sentiment was growing against slavery. Evidence was the provision added to the NW Ordinance, passed the same year, that no new states would be no slavery.

I have checked to see what I can find, which is Article 1.9.1 under restraints on Congress. The Constitution just doesn't stop the states from importation of slaves or bond servants for 20 years. Thereafter it gives the Feds the right to terminate that.

It was the price they had to pay to ensure that the new union include three states: Georgia, SC and NC. There was even growing sentiment in those states against slavery even, but they needed time to phase out that economic dependence.

Don't forget, originally all of the colonies had slaves and bond servants but the north eventually outlawed it like most other places in the world with the stroke of a pen. Even Jefferson's first political act, at the age of 25 years, when elected to the VA legislature was to bring the elimination of slavery. He tried to encourage it even more when he wrote the Declaration's line "all men were created equal." One of Jefferson's complaints in his original draft for the Declaration was that the King and his predecessors would NOT ALLOW the colonies to outlaw the importation of slaves.

So moral sentiment was growing but I wouldn't say "huge chunks" of the Consitution advocate or support slavery in it's general language.

Garcia Bronco
04-04-2009, 12:41 PM
The answer is no. An amendment is part of the Constitution. So if you amendend it....it's amended.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 12:52 PM
...and slavery was not the cause of the Civil War which has already been debated here. ( I'll see if I can locate that instead of reposting) Lincoln told the southern states they could keep their slaves if they would stay in the union. They still left. Why? Because of a high mercantilist tariff that was crushing to the agricultural south which Lincoln's corporate sponsor's wanted to build railroads.

You're using what was the Three-Fifths Compromise. The context of those debates were regarding having adequate "representation for taxation" purposes, which was one of the cause of our War for Independence. Madison is even on record as saying some states may want to swell the numbers of their inhabitants to bias things. He also said, " We must deny the fact that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons." If anything they counted them as 3/5ths for taxation purposes and didn't count indians at all who would not be taxed. That moves them in the direction of full personhood.

If this compromise hadn't have happened there'd also be no Constitution either. It was movement in the right direction and the other clause I cited above is further evidence of this.

There also is no fugitive slave clause. There is a general fugitive justice clause that may have been used on slaves but it is not just for slaves. Article IV.2.2.

Still, your passages are not huge chunks of the Constitution. They're bits and pieces, one of them dealing with taxation with representation and the other dealing with any fugitive from justice. One of them, the one I used, ends the importation of slaves after a period....so that doesn't fit either.

orange
04-04-2009, 12:54 PM
I asked Orange to show me the "huge chunks of the original document" that protects involuntary servitude was all. Until then I don't see that case.


Miss Something?

Take for example the 13th Amendment which completely contradicts and overrules huge chunks of the original document and the Founders' intent.

And I won't bother writing a history book, here. Slavery was a gigantic part of early U.S. economy and culture, and the Constitution expressly preserved it.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 01:07 PM
Miss Something?

Yeah...those "huge chunks." Huge meaning huge not a few select passages out of a document that has huge amounts more of other stuff.

And I won't bother writing a history book, here. Slavery was a gigantic part of early U.S. economy and culture, and the Constitution expressly preserved it.

Yes it was part of the southern states economy and culture but that's not the Constitution, which also uses the words "persons" with regard to both liberty and property. One could make an argument that slavery violates part of it too.

The Constitution doesn't preserve slavery, as much as it was written as a restraint on the Federal Govt and protects state sovereignty. It's just not activist in the area. If anything it does so some very limited things against its increase. It doesn't advocate slavery per se.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 01:10 PM
Just 'cause I said I would locate this:

State's Rights' Revival (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3876992&highlight=Lincoln+slavery#post3876992)

Post #81 and 83 Page 6.


I've since read more about the taxation issues and the tariffs. Was a big factor but the nawth wrote the history books because they won the war.

orange
04-04-2009, 01:13 PM
Samuel Hopkins of Connecticut lamented the permission of slavery,

How does it appear... that these States, who have been fighting for liberty and consider themselves as the highest and most noble example of zeal for it, cannot agree in any political Constitution, unless it indulge and authorise them to enslave their fellow men.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 01:17 PM
Samuel Hopkins of Connecticut lamented the permission of slavery,

How does it appear... that these States, who have been fighting for liberty and consider themselves as the highest and most noble example of zeal for it, cannot agree in any political Constitution, unless it indulge and authorise them to enslave their fellow men.

That's not the Constitution though....that's those states' practices. The Constitution didn't infringe on the states is all. The quote also reveals what I said about growing sentiment against it and it being done away in the north first. It also shows how they disagreed and had to settle on a compromise in order to get the Constitution just to pass.

orange
04-04-2009, 01:22 PM
The Constitution doesn't dirty itself with the words "slavery" or "slave." It's a whitewash*. But the idea slavery wasn't endorsed is ludicrous.

All those rights guaranteed to "the people?" SLAVES WEREN'T "THE PEOPLE." They had NO rights.

Couldn't vote, own property, sue, make contracts including marriage, etc ad infinitum. The Constitution simply left the status quo stand.


p.s. Rutledge was a "Founding Father" no less than Jefferson.


* pun not intended

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 01:30 PM
The Constitution doesn't dirty itself with the words "slavery" or "slave." But the idea slavery wasn't endorsed is ludicrous.
It also puts some restraints on it too. It isn't black and white on this issue. And huge chunks of the document do not deal with it pe se.

All those rights guaranteed to "the people?" SLAVES WEREN'T PEOPLE. They had NO rights.
Yes, but that language does apply even if not practiced fully yet. My objection was to huge chunks endorsing it...not the practices of certain people at that time.

Couldn't vote, own property, sue, make contracts including marriage. The Constitution simply left the status quo stand.
It didn't leave all of that status quo in tact. It did do somethings....like end importation at least at a future date.

So what would you have done? Have a union with the northern states only? That would have done nothing for ending slavery either.
Kept the Articles of Confederation which wouldn't have stopped the importation of slaves ever?


P.S. Rutledge was a "Founding Father" no less than Jefferson.

Not saying he wasn't. Just saying the issue wasn't settled terminatedly was all. There was disagreement on how to deal with the issue.
He even agrees with Jefferson's sentiments.

orange
04-04-2009, 01:41 PM
So what would you have done? Have a union with the northern states only? That would have done nothing for ending slavery either.
Kept the Articles of Confederation which wouldn't have stopped the importation of slaves ever?


Where did you ever get the idea I'm against the Constitution as passed? I'm simply saying (here) that the Thirteenth is an example of an Amendment overruling the original law.


As an addendum, I think the slavery compromises are the most glaring and obvious reasons to not worship the "original intent." As I said, Rutledge was a "Founding Father" no less than Jefferson.


And as an addendum to my addendum, there is ONE "original intent" that I'm firmly onboard with - the Amendment process that's built in to the Constitution itself - the recognition that they didn't get everything perfect and for all time.

banyon
04-04-2009, 01:48 PM
Good grief.

patteeu
04-04-2009, 02:05 PM
I asked Orange to show me the "huge chunks of the original document" that protects involuntary servitude was all. Until then I don't see that case.

So I will ask you to show me where the Constitution specifically sanctions slavery or "huge chunks of the document" supporting it rather than just not having the Federal govt address it much due to the document mainly being a restraint on the Federal govt.

That was an issue the Founders didn't really settle in a terminatedly fashion at the Constitutional Convention. But the sentiment was growing against slavery. Evidence was the provision added to the NW Ordinance, passed the same year, that no new states would be no slavery.

I have checked to see what I can find, which is Article 1.9.1 under restraints on Congress. The Constitution just doesn't stop the states from importation of slaves or bond servants for 20 years. Thereafter it gives the Feds the right to terminate that.

It was the price they had to pay to ensure that the new union include three states: Georgia, SC and NC. There was even growing sentiment in those states against slavery even, but they needed time to phase out that economic dependence.

Don't forget, originally all of the colonies had slaves and bond servants but the north eventually outlawed it like most other places in the world with the stroke of a pen. Even Jefferson's first political act, at the age of 25 years, when elected to the VA legislature was to bring the elimination of slavery. He tried to encourage it even more when he wrote the Declaration's line "all men were created equal." One of Jefferson's complaints in his original draft for the Declaration was that the King and his predecessors would NOT ALLOW the colonies to outlaw the importation of slaves.

So moral sentiment was growing but I wouldn't say "huge chunks" of the Consitution advocate or support slavery in it's general language.

The original constitution clearly allows for slavery, no matter how widespread the abolitionist movement was. That's undeniable even if the document doesn't specifically sanction it.

But I admit that it was the 14th amendment and not the 13th that led to the change that I had in mind. Specifically, the following portion of Article 1 Section 2 was modified by language in the 14th:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

This language implicitly condones slavery, btw. The three fifths language became a dead letter as a result of the 13th amendment since "all other Persons" were no longer permitted.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 02:07 PM
Where did you ever get the idea I'm against the Constitution as passed?
I'm just putting to you the idea that they had to compromise to get it passed instead of it being "dirty" becuase it wasn't activist enough to end slavery.


I'm simply saying (here) that the Thirteenth is an example of an Amendment overruling the original law.
That's true....but it was how you put it the first time that was my objection.
Like the "huge chunks" part. There's a difference between cultural practices and the document itself.

As an addendum, I think the slavery compromises are the most glaring and obvious reasons to not worship the "original intent." As I said, Rutledge was a "Founding Father" no less than Jefferson.
This quote is where I get the idea that you don't favor the Constitution as passed.

Just because original intent wasn't ideal on this issue doesn't mean it isn't on other issues. Original intent allows for amendments too.

I mean really, slavery eventually got dealt with and it would have as the world was changing against it. I think slavery would have died out eventually with the stroke of a pen and economically as it was not efficient. This was the case in most nations of the world including the northern part of this country.


And as an addendum to my addendum, there is ONE "original intent" that I'm firmly onboard with - the Amendment process that's built in to the Constitution itself - the recognition that they didn't get everything perfect and for all time.

Oh well, I already posted as I did in the earlier part of this post before seeing this.

I'm fine on the Amendment process and am glad they're difficult to pull off. I think these can be abused by watering down original intent too. Like the 16th Amendment. Now that's modern slavery!

patteeu
04-04-2009, 02:11 PM
Still, your passages are not huge chunks of the Constitution. They're bits and pieces...

That's kind of a trivial objection compared to the seemingly major difference between an original intent to abolish slavery versus the reality that the document clearly represents an acceptance of it.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 02:16 PM
The original constitution clearly allows for slavery, no matter how widespread the abolitionist movement was. That's undeniable even if the document doesn't specifically sanction it.
My question was where are the "huge chunks" of the document that allow for it. There's no huge chunks of language. I see this as indirect by not interfering in the state's domain. That's like saying it supports wife beating because it's not expressly outlawed too.
This language implicitly condones slavery, btw.
And what about the language on a persons right to liberty?
I don't see it as B&W as that. I think it's oversimplified.
I see it as hands-off, as a lot of things are for the Feds, except where no new states can be slave states and importation expressly ends by it.

The three fifths language became a dead letter as a result of the 13th amendment since "all other Persons" were no longer permitted.
Well, of course.

I would say all "persons" liberty was now protected under the document as opposed to no longer being permitted.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2009, 02:20 PM
That's kind of a trivial objection compared to the seemingly major difference between an original intent to abolish slavery versus the reality that the document clearly represents an acceptance of it.
Calling it trivial is purely subjective opinion. There was no original intent to abolish slavery. That's what was clear at the CC especially since the anti-federalists didn't even want this new document. Like Patrick Henry. There was disagreement on the issue which lead to a compromise.

I don't think it's "clear" as other language such as person's" contradict the practice at the same time. It was a practice and the document was primarily written as restraint on what the Federal govt could do. It wasn't written as an expansive document conferring a lot of powers on the Federal govt. So it's more an indirect, and by some a reluctant acceptance of it while having other language like "persons" and stopping importation after a certain date. It's not black and white.

Let's not forget what I originally objected to which was "huge chunks" of the Consitution were overturned with the 13th amendment.

Fat Elvis
04-04-2009, 10:38 PM
The implementation and useage of the grand jury that is guarenteed by the 5th amendment many times results in a suspension of other constitutional rights even if you aren't the person indicted.....

Amnorix
04-05-2009, 12:16 AM
Here's hoping I have time in the near future to, once again, correct some of BEP's more outrageous statements regarding "history".

Some of her points aren't bad -- especially that the Constitution represented a compromise position and that keeping the various slavery-related clauses in was better than not having it passed at all, but some are a complete joke.

Regrettably, the real world has been absurdly busy of late, so who knows if I'll ever get to a detailed refutation.

Amnorix
04-05-2009, 12:17 AM
As to the main point -- it's absolutely absurd to even suggest that any part of the Constitution can itself be unconstitutional.

Any subsequent amendment of course supercedes contradictory previously existing language, though such contradictions can lead to confusion.

patteeu
04-05-2009, 07:26 AM
Calling it trivial is purely subjective opinion.

So is the difference between "huge chunks" and "bits and pieces".

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 09:47 AM
So is the difference between "huge chunks" and "bits and pieces".
No that's in the realm of fact as it can be backed up with clauses and counting those clauses to the total to see if it's really huge chunks. That's why I asked for it to be explained with more data.

Sometimes the facts can be in dispute sometimes the final conclusion or opinion can be in dispute. However, a statement like "trivial" calls for evaluating importances which is in the realm of opinion. We could all agree to a set of facts, but how we evaluate which ones are important deals with what one values. Hence, people drawing different conclusions and opinions from any set of facts even when those facts can all be agreed upon.

So far we found one passage that ends importation of slaves and one that accepts slaves to a certain degree for representation, and the word "persons" is used regarding many rights. Now how many passages in total are there to compare the real ratio?

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 09:48 AM
The implementation and useage of the grand jury that is guarenteed by the 5th amendment many times results in a suspension of other constitutional rights even if you aren't the person indicted.....

Such as?

orange
04-05-2009, 10:04 AM
No that's in the realm of fact as it can be backed up with clauses and counting those clauses to the total to see if it's really huge chunks. That's why I asked for it to be explained with more data.

Sometimes the facts can be in dispute sometimes the final conclusion or opinion can be in dispute. However, a statement like "trivial" calls for evaluating importances which is in the realm of opinion. We could all agree to a set of facts, but how we evaluate which ones are important deals with what one values. Hence, peoplel drawing different conclusions and opinions from any set of facts even when those facts can all be agreed upon.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

Two little lines in a huge volume, easily dwarfing the U. S. Constitution. Aren't they a "huge chunk" of Jesus' moral teachings?


Why are you fixated on the fact that the references to slavery are just a few words? It was the main source of contention and debate during the Constitutional Convention, with the Southern States threatening to never ratify a Constitution that ended slavery? The compromises were huge, even if represented by only a few words.

ROSEBUD.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 10:08 AM
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

Two little lines in a huge volume, easily dwarfing the U. S. Constitution. Aren't they a "huge chunk" of Jesus' moral teachings?

I don't know anything about those.I do know that slavery was practiced in the time of Jesus but he didn't try to abolish it. His kingdom was not of this earth and has nothing to do with govt law. Nor does it have to do with what I asked for as back up.

orange
04-05-2009, 10:11 AM
I don't know anything about those.I do know that slavery was practiced in the time of Jesus but he didn't try to abolish it. His kingdom was not of this earth and has nothing to do with govt law. Nor does it have to do with what I asked for as back up.

Those are "The Golden Rule." So important that they have a name everyone has heard, 2000 years later.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,840,000 for "the golden rule".

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 10:20 AM
Those are "The Golden Rule." So important that they have a name everyone has heard, 2000 years later.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,840,000 for "the golden rule".

That may be, but that wasn't what I was questioning. I wasn't questioning the morality nor right or wrongness of slavery or personal behavior in how to treat others. It was a widespread practice for thousands of years....and it's time was coming for it's abolition no matter what.

There's the Golden Rule and then there's the Platinum Rule. Not everyone wants to be treated the same way someone else would like to be treated. So then the Platinum Rule applies: treat them the way they want to be treated. I'm talking personal behavior not law though.

orange
04-05-2009, 10:37 AM
You were questioning whether slavery constituted "huge chunks" of the original intent of the Constitution:


I asked Orange to show me the "huge chunks of the original document" that protects involuntary servitude was all. Until then I don't see that case.

So I will ask you to show me where the Constitution specifically sanctions slavery or "huge chunks of the document" supporting it rather than just not having the Federal govt address it much due to the document mainly being a restraint on the Federal govt.

...

So moral sentiment was growing but I wouldn't say "huge chunks" of the Consitution advocate or support slavery in it's general language.



How about another analogy, this one more direct? Is the protection of private property a "huge chunk" of the intent of the authors? The word "Property" only appears once in the text:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. (Article IV, Section 3) - obviously irrelevant


... and twice in the Bill of Rights:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Amendment 5)



I guess by your reasoning, private property rights were just "bits and pieces."

Hell, Jefferson excised it completely from the Declaration of Independence in favor of "the pursuit of happiness."

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 10:44 AM
I alluded to the "right to life, liberty and property" parts of the Constitution regarding the word "persons." It should have applied to black slave, even bond servatns, but it didn't in practice. That's a failure of applying it to all persons.

Instead, they were considered and treated as "property." But those clauses, just based on the writing alone would lend support to their being freeman, which is how I used it. That it didn't was the cultural lag and not applying the full meaning to them. So I can't say on the writing alone, that it's part of the huge chunks. That's why it's not as B&W as being claimed.


FTR I think the 13th Amendment does that for them.
That being said, I have no more to say on the matter as it's repetitive.
I thank you for being a worthy opponent due to your civility and intelligence.

orange
04-05-2009, 10:49 AM
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about slaves as property. I'm talking about the fact that EVERYTHING the Constitution says about the right of private property is in that one line - yet we (ESPECIALLY Conservatives) insist that the right to private property is a central tenet of the United States.

Clearly the wordcount is irrelevant to its importance.

Just like slavery.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 10:54 AM
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about slaves as property. I'm talking about the fact that EVERYTHING the Constitution says about the right of private property is in that one line - yet we (ESPECIALLY Conservatives) insist that the right to private property is a central tenet of the United States.

Clearly the wordcount is irrelevant to its importance.



Well property is a right.* That doesn't make human beings property though. The flaw is that these people were considered that culturally. That's how certain people in certain states applied their local law allowed for in the Constitution and is how some interpreted the Consitution if brought to the SC. ( Dred Scott case) It doesn't mean the Constitution itself was pro-slavery per se. It was a hands off document regarding states mainly. It falls under application of it's principles. It did at least count them somewhat for representation purposes and end further importation. Also, the same year it was signed, the NW Ordinance prevented more slave states.

You can't expect a thousand year old practice to just die out overnight it was a gradual enlightenment. There was some progress here but just not enough.

How many chunks of the Constitution applies is not irrelevant because you made that claim. That's the part that was challenged. It is very relevant. You're taking a liberal construction to the document. I think you're categorizing the plain words into the category of cultural practices and how it's applied as if they're the same category of thing. It's more a hypocrisy at work.


* not as much anymore though in different aspects

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 11:03 AM
We have our rights in that exact order too:

Life, liberty and property


That's why it's written that way.

You can't make someone a slave now a days and you can't take someone's life just because they're on your property as in murder not a criminal intruder who you think may harm you. If your have a hall and some microphones, you can restrict what speech is spoken by not allowing certain people, groups or ideas to speak. The govt can't restrict that speech though.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 11:28 AM
Abolitionist Frederick Douglass dismissed the allegations of Constitutional marriage to slavery and he was once a slave:

"Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery."

I'd say we're all slaves today, white, latin, black, mixed when the 16th Amendment was put in. They took slavery out with the 13th, and then put it back in. Go figure.

orange
04-05-2009, 12:00 PM
Abolitionist Frederick Douglass dismissed the allegations of Constitutional marriage to slavery and he was once a slave:


Quote:
"Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery."



It's a political speech. The whole passage:

THE CONSTITUTION.

But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.

Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped "To palter with us in a double sense: And keep the word of promise to the ear, But break it to the heart."

And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practiced on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length - nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour.

"[L]et me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it."

Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a track of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a fight to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this fight, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted. He further says, the constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. Senator Berrien tell us that the Constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. The charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. The testimony of Senator Breese, Lewis Cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the constitution. I take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument.

Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.

He adopted the same "where is the word slave?" SOPHISTRY you already have in this topic. The answer is clear: "other persons."

He had just spent 2000* words railing on "your government," "your forefathers," "your independence" - that is, NOT his. This last bit was to lighten the blow and get off stage. FD's next line: "I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion."

A sentiment and an exit which I shall now echo.


[edit] The whole speech here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=162

[edit again] I was curious, so I found a tool: http://www.wordcounttool.com/

* Make that 10000 words!

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 01:03 PM
The sophistry is his— because he contradicts himself. I just happened to find the quote googling....it was an NOT an intentional sophistry. I find that accusative and ad hominem. Someone doesn't agree with you accuse them of deception. Yup! You're a liberal alright.

But he's saying the same thing I am—just in a different way. That the plain words do not support slavery, that much is true. Let alone huge chunks of it.

That people are applying it another way as in being hypocritical doesn't mean the words themselves are pro-slavery. Their behavior contradicts the words. The document itself, restrains the Fed govt from state matters, so it allowed as a practice by sheer fact that it's a system of federalism and people at that time viewed their state as an independent sovereignty that the feds had no domain over. That changed post civil war. But then the north outlawed it too. Why didn't the Feds invade the north for doing that if the Consitution was pro-slavery? That has nothing to do with the words of the document.

You're confusing the two using the modern loose construction of the document. That being said, the words themselves or huge chunks of the plain words do not support slavery. That's the argument....not one's conclusions or opinion on how inadvertently slavery continued in the south only. Not how people applied or practiced it.

You have found NO words that are pro-slavery because they factually DO NOT exist— never mind huge chunks being pro-slavery. So we're back to square one again and the argument is repeating.

And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practiced on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length - nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour.

He uses the word conclusion. That's not the words of the document. You moved the goal posts on what I challenged. His third sentence contradicts his first.

But I don't appreciate your accusation of sophistry, a derogatory term. That could apply equally to your argument too. You don't understand federalism is how I see your argument. You think it means the Constitution was a progressive document to socially engineer states. It wasn't.

So have a nice day.

banyon
04-05-2009, 01:12 PM
But I don't appreciate your accusation of sophistry. So have a nice day.

Protagoras probably didn't appreciate it either, but that didn't change what he was trying to do.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 01:13 PM
Did you say something?

banyon
04-05-2009, 01:21 PM
Did you say something?

Did you pretend you weren't clicking on your fake ignored posts again?

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 01:22 PM
Huh?

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 01:50 PM
Federalism

Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/

BucEyedPea
04-05-2009, 02:00 PM
According to this Douglas changed his thinking on his interpretation of the Constitution.


Another very important explanation for Douglass's change of mind is that at least some aspects of the anti-slavery reading of the Constitution have a fair claim to historical validity, and their logic attracted him. The Constitution of 1787, unlike the Civil War South's Confederate Constitution, was a compromise with slavery rather than a proud embrace of it. (17) Not only radical abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, but moderate reformers, including Abraham Lincoln, saw anti-slavery features in the Constitution. Lincoln, and many of his fellow Republicans differed with Douglass in holding that the Constitution protected slavery where it already existed, but agreed with him that the founders opposed slavery's expansion westward. Both Lincoln and Frederick Douglass looked at the language of the Constitution empowering Congress "to make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territories," and saw in this the right to ban slavery from the new western territories, a reading of the Constitution that slavery's advocates violently opposed. (18)

Since Douglass, in 1860, was reading the Constitution to conform with his anti-slavery aspirations, he did tend to ignore contrary evidence. Even so, he was correct in arguing that the Constitution empowered (though did not require) the federal government to abolish the slave trade, which it did in 1808;


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6541/is_5_72/ai_n28580106/pg_4/