the Constitution is evil and hinders liberal "progress"

[mavs>spurs]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/31/georgetown-law-professor-scrap-archaic-idiosyncratic-and-downright-evil-constitution/


With hours to go before nation heads off the fiscal cliff, Georgetown Law professor Louis Michael Seidman writes that the time has come to scrap the Constitution.In an op-ed published (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all) in the New York Times Monday, Seidman, a constitutional law professor, claimed that the nation’s foundational document is the real impediment to progress and solutions to America’s troubles.
“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken,” Seidman wrote. “But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”

According to Seidman, the country’s insistence that it maintain the will of a centuries-old document “has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public.”
Seidman, author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0199898278/thedaical-20),” explained that adherence to constitutional law, which he has taught for over 40 years, is just “bizarre.”
“Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country,” he wrote. “Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?”
The Georgetown Law professor argued that disobedience to the Constitution is older than the document itself — noting that in 1787 the framers abandoned their mandate to amend the Articles of Confederation and instead created an entirely new document, the Constitution.
Seidman cited examples in which monumental figures in American history have turned their backs on the document, including John Adams’ support for the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal expansion of federal powers.

“In the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text,” he added. “Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.”
Seidman concedes that his goal — to scrap the Constitution in favor of long standing institutions and good judgment — is likely not to happen anytime soon. Instead, he advocates beginning to “soften the habit.”
“If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by ‘We the people’ is impossibly utopian,” he concluded. “If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/31/georgetown-law-professor-scrap-archaic-idiosyncratic-and-downright-evil-constitution/#ixzz2GkLnFxNx

[mavs>spurs]

:lol the constitution is "evil" and we need to get rid of it so we can give "real freedom" a chance

/cliffnotes for the dumbfucks

[DMC]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-121214-nkorea-da-01.photoblog900.jpg

[boutons_deux]

dailycaller :lol

Propaganda for right-wing dumbfucks.

[boutons_deux]

(simplistic) text worship is a false god rampant among simple-minded bubbas, "Christians", right-wingers, along with the total misinterpretation of sacred text to fit their personal political advantage.

[Th'Pusher]

They're gonna take my guns and my constitution that Jesus signed.

[ElNono]

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a god damn piece of paper!"

:lol

[DMC]

(simplistic) text worship is a false god rampant among simple-minded bubbas, "Christians", right-wingers, along with the total misinterpretation of sacred text to fit their personal political advantage.

Without that simple text the case law from the last, oh... 300 or so years would be null and void. If the document itself is outdated, so are the decisions that were based on it. That means women and blacks don't get to vote, there's no freedom of speech, of religion (worship or you will be sorry), no due process, no states rights, ect...

It's one thing for a Harvard grad constitution professor to comment, but something completely different for an ignorant ass liberal buzz word slinging faggot like you to just blurt it out like you even remotely understand the ramifications of what you're suggesting, and before you play the CD/Fuzzy card and challenge me to prove you suggested doing away with the constitution, pop your head out of your ass but warn us first so we can prepare for the sonic boom.

[DMC]

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a god damn piece of paper!"

:lol

Pretty sure that was retracted by the originator and shot to pieces by Factcheck.org.

[ElNono]

Pretty sure that was retracted by the originator and shot to pieces by Factcheck.org.

I'm even more sure the originator's actions backed up the stance much more than any words would.

[ChumpDumper]

I think the stuff in the constitution about slavery was downright evil.

[DMC]

I'm even more sure the originator's actions backed up the stance much more than any words would.

Ok, but the quote is false. The constitution has been virtually ignored by most presidents in my life time, at every juncture.

[ElNono]

The constitution has been virtually ignored by most presidents in my life time, at every juncture.

That's actually at the core of what the article states. Far from 'liberal' or 'conservative' progress. I thought it was a good read and brings up some valid points (even though I personally don't subscribe to the notion we should flat out ignore the thing)

[Wild Cobra]

That's actually at the core of what the article states. Far from 'liberal' or 'conservative' progress. I thought it was a good read and brings up some valid points (even though I personally don't subscribe to the notion we should flat out ignore the thing)
Problem with scrapping the constitution is, what do you replace it with?

No matter how you change it, people will find ways of exercising power over others. The root problem is the sheeple voting for these people. As a whole, the public gets what it deserves.

[DMC]

That's actually at the core of what the article states. Far from 'liberal' or 'conservative' progress. I thought it was a good read and brings up some valid points (even though I personally don't subscribe to the notion we should flat out ignore the thing)
The executive branch is historically not concerned with the judicial side of things. The three party system works well in that regard, in that, by and large, even infractions by high level executives gets challenged and often defeated by high level jurisprudence. So it doesn't move me that certain elected leaders did not embrace or even willingly adhere to the Bill of Rights. Legislators are guilty of this as well, and that's why I view the USSC as the most important establishment in the country.

[ElNono]

The executive branch is historically not concerned with the judicial side of things. The three party system works well in that regard, in that, by and large, even infractions by high level executives gets challenged and often defeated by high level jurisprudence. So it doesn't move me that certain elected leaders did not embrace or even willingly adhere to the Bill of Rights. Legislators are guilty of this as well, and that's why I view the USSC as the most important establishment in the country.

The executive is directly responsible for the composition of the USSC. I would hardly call that 'unconcerned' with the judiciary. I think all powers like to test the boundaries, and have little qualms of applying novel concepts to try to avoid old power checks. When a claim of 'national security' trumps any judicial oversight, the judiciary is simply being bastardized and I think our balance of powers take a real hit. I would agree with you that the legislative is oftentimes complicit.

[ElNono]

Problem with scrapping the constitution is, what do you replace it with?

That's addressed in the article.

[Wild Cobra]

That's addressed in the article.
What did I miss? He mentioned the Articles of Confederation being replaced by the constitution, but I'm not sure what you mean. I'll pull the link up again.

[Wild Cobra]

If you mean this:

scrap the Constitution in favor of long standing institutions and good judgment
I only see that as completely foolish. Besides, he is wrong about the examples he claims as unconstitutional.

[ElNono]

Start at This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands.

Obviously, that's his opinion. You should address questions about it to him.

[Wild Cobra]

Start at This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands.

Obviously, that's his opinion. You should address questions about it to him.
By your reply, you seemed to understand something I don't. I guess you are in the dark too.

[ElNono]

I only see that as completely foolish. Besides, he is wrong about the examples he claims as unconstitutional.

I could disagree with his opinions. I'm not sure I would say a guy with 40 years of teaching constitutional law has no clue what's constitutional or not.

[ElNono]

By your reply, you seemed to understand something I don't. I guess you are in the dark too.

He lays down what does the constitution would be replaced with. I thought that was your question.

[Wild Cobra]

I could disagree with his opinions. I'm not sure I would say a guy with 40 years of teaching constitutional law has no clue what's constitutional or not.
When you have an opinion that opposes law, lawyers are known to find ways of claiming the laws wrong. The same holds true when the law is followed, lawyers can find ways of saying it isn't. For your view to be accurate, this guy would require to have no bias. How likely is that?

[ElNono]

When you have an opinion that opposes law, lawyers are known to find ways of claiming the laws wrong. The same holds true when the law is followed, lawyers can fins ways of saying it isn't. For your view to be accurate, this guy would require to have no bias. How likely is that?

I don't follow, what are you arguing here?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't follow, what are you arguing here?
That lawyers are professionals at twisting what the law was meant to be.

[ElNono]

That lawyers are professionals at twisting what the law was meant to be.

Are you a lawyer?

[Wild Cobra]

Are you a lawyer?
No.

Does one need to be to see that?

[ElNono]

No.

Does one need to be to see that?

See what? *You* opined that this constitutional law professor with 40 years of experience doesn't know what's unconstitutional. I personally will give the benefit of the doubt to the teacher everytime over a person that has zero education in law in general, much less on constitutional law in particular.

[ElNono]

(Which doesn't mean I agree with his opinion on this particular topic, however)

[boutons_deux]

:lol the constitution is "evil" and we need to get rid of it so we can give "real freedom" a chance

/cliffnotes for the dumbfucks

a post from a right-wing dumbfuck "inside the box" of conventional thinking. Don't expect any solutions from such a benighted asshole. Conservatives want to conserve the country on THEIR self-enriching, privileged path down the shithole.

[Wild Cobra]

(Which doesn't mean I agree with his opinion on this particular topic, however)
No time to get into it now, I have to get ready for work. Love working the holidays and getting those extra bux...

Consider for example the pros and cons as to the legality of the Alien and Sedition Acts. There are constitutional provisions to abandon the rights as we think we know them.

[ElNono]

I have no intention to argue constitutional law with you either. Actually, this already has gone longer than it should.

[DMC]

The executive is directly responsible for the composition of the USSC. I would hardly call that 'unconcerned' with the judiciary. I think all powers like to test the boundaries, and have little qualms of applying novel concepts to try to avoid old power checks. When a claim of 'national security' trumps any judicial oversight, the judiciary is simply being bastardized and I think our balance of powers take a real hit. I would agree with you that the legislative is oftentimes complicit.

They do not share judicial concerns. They select justices that share their political ideals. It's not the goal of the executive branch to interpret the constitution, only to enforce the laws that are created by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch. The president's job isn't picking a justice, it's nominating one. We still have the senate to approve/disapprove of the nomination. I wouldn't call them directly responsible. They are responsible only for the nominations. Of course, no one in the USSC was nominated by anyone but the president. One could argue that it's the same thing but if your child came to you with a toy and said "can I have this?" and you kept saying "no" until he showed up with one you felt ok about, who's responsible for that child having that toy? I'd say you. It's about as good of a checks and balances system as we can get. If that many elected leaders are corrupt, we're fucked anyhow.

[DMC]

When you have an opinion that opposes law, lawyers are known to find ways of claiming the laws wrong. The same holds true when the law is followed, lawyers can find ways of saying it isn't. For your view to be accurate, this guy would require to have no bias. How likely is that?

How do you think laws get overturned or created in the first place if people aren't constantly questioning the validity of the law? Laws aren't handed down by a god, they are just rules our elected have decided to enact to solve an existing problem. Sometimes those overreach their constitutional boundaries and get overturned or amended. Even judges don't agree with all the laws, they just interpret them.

Truth doesn't rest on whether or not the person talking has a bias.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The president's job isn't picking a justice, it's nominating one. We still have the senate to approve/disapprove of the nomination. I wouldn't call them directly responsible. They are responsible only for the nominations. Of course, no one in the USSC was nominated by anyone but the president. One could argue that it's the same thing but if your child came to you with a toy and said "can I have this?"

And wow surprise surprise a shitty semantic argument.

He doesn't choose, he nominates. what do mutually exclusive mean?

[DMC]

And wow surprise surprise a shitty semantic argument.

He doesn't choose, he nominates. what do mutually exclusive mean?
And wow Fuzzy with the "didn't read but I know the answer" premature ejaculation.

I explained that already with the analogy.

If the senate wasn't involved, there would be no oversight to his selections, just like how a parent tells a child what he can and cannot have even if the child is the one who picks it. Because there is some oversight, it's not as cut and dry as saying "The executive is directly responsible for the composition of the USSC." when the senate has to approve the nominations.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You act like I do not get your shitty semantic argument. You apparently do not get the notion of mutual exclusivity or lack thereof.

[Galileo]

I think the stuff in the constitution about slavery was downright evil.

slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution. You are both an idiot and a liar, and probably pro-slavery.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution. You are both an idiot and a liar, and probably pro-slavery.

He said 'about' slavery. What do you think the 3/5 rule was 'about?'

[Galileo]

He said 'about' slavery. What do you think the 3/5 rule was 'about?'

South Carolina voted against the 3/5th rule.

[ChumpDumper]

slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution. You are both an idiot and a liar, and probably pro-slavery.The word is never mentioned, but it's certainly in there.


South Carolina voted against the 3/5th rule.They probably wanted their slaves to count for more -- the slaves they had enslaved through the practice of slavery.

[Galileo]

The word is never mentioned, but it's certainly in there.

They probably wanted their slaves to count for more.

The 3/5 rule penalizes states that held slaves. That's why South Carolina voted against it.

[ChumpDumper]

The 3/5 rule penalizes states that held slaves. That's why South Carolina voted against it.Thanks for acknowledging it was about slavery.

[Galileo]

Thanks for acknowledging it was about slavery.

Thanks for acknowledging you agree with South Carolina.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for acknowledging you agree with South Carolina.You'll have to show where I agreed with them.

[Galileo]

You'll have to show where I agreed with them.

Chump-dumper and South Carolina both opposed the 3/5th rule.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump-dumper and South Carolina both opposed the 3/5th rule.So your support of the 3/5 rule reflects your support of slavery.

If you're just going to pitch straw all DMC-style, I'll just Godwin the thread and get it over with.

[Trainwreck2100]

I wouldn't mind it they brought the 3/5 rule back and replaced slaves with stupid people

[DMC]

The 3/5th compromise wasn't about slavery. It was about taxation of the state. It's dishonest (shocker) to say that it was about slavery just because slavery is mentioned. It was not geared to effect slavery, even if it did inadvertently. It's the same as charging a property tax on otherwise unimproved land because there's a shed on it, then saying the law is about sheds.

Fuzzy and CD are fixated on the "racist" shtick so much they cannot see past it. It's really an ineffective way for adults to converse, the finger pointing and derailing of threads as they try to run the racist pick and roll.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure CD never heard of it and was under the false impression that slavery was talked about in the constitution which is why Fuzzy came in and attempted to bail him out with a semantic argument.

Now watch him say he trolled.

[ChumpDumper]

And DMC said he couldn't be baited....

[DMC]

And DMC said he couldn't be baited....

lol pegged

[ChumpDumper]

lol peggedYeah you were. You got amazingly and preemptively defensive about your racial views for no real reason.

I wasn't talking about race at all -- nor was I even trying to troll. You sure have race on the brain though.

lol editing after I posted

[DMC]

Yeah you were. You got amazingly and preemptively defensive about your racial views for no real reason.

I wasn't talking about race at all -- nor was I even trying to troll. You sure have race on the brain though.

lol editing after I posted
No, you edited after you posted to put the statement in about me. That's how I knew you were baiting. You were just too anxious to respond and got pegged. Just admit it and move on. It's a new year.

[ChumpDumper]

No, you edited after you posted to put the statement in about me.That doesn't meant you couldn't have edited after I posted.
That's how I knew you were baiting.But you just implied I wasn't and that saying I was baiting was a cover up.
You were just too anxious to respond and got pegged. Just admit it and move on. It's a new year.The part about you was clearly baiting -- which worked flawlessly. I'm glad you admit you got baited. I didn't even have to Godwin the thread.

The part about parts of the Constitution being about slavery -- even as it applies to taxation of states -- was not. That taxes were based in any part on slavery -- I don't like that because I don't like slavery and it's a shame this nation had it and held onto it for so long. If you want to ignore the implications of that clause, you are free to do so.

[mavs>spurs]

don't like that because I don't like slavery and it's a shame this nation had it and held onto it for so long.

tbh, aren't you and your bf into bondage? i guess slavery is different when it comes to the bedroom and not the cotton field i saiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiddd!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

tbh, aren't you and your bf into bondage? i guess slavery is different when it comes to the bedroom and not the cotton field i saiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiddd!!!!!tbh, aren't you the guy who has been trying to find out where I live for the last few months?

[DMC]

That doesn't meant you couldn't have edited after I posted.But you just implied I wasn't and that saying I was baiting was a cover up.The part about you was clearly baiting -- which worked flawlessly. I'm glad you admit you got baited. I didn't even have to Godwin the thread.

The part about parts of the Constitution being about slavery -- even as it applies to taxation of states -- was not. That taxes were based in any part on slavery -- I don't like that because I don't like slavery and it's a shame this nation had it and held onto it for so long. If you want to ignore the implications of that clause, you are free to do so.

I didn't say you weren't. I said watch you say you were. How does that imply the opposite or do you just make shit up as you go?

[mavs>spurs]

tbh i went down to austin and asked around for you, the guy at the truck stop pointed over to the port-a-potty and when i walked up it said "occupied," better luck next time i saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidddddddddddddddddddddddd!!!!!!!!

[DMC]

tbh, aren't you the guy who has been trying to find out where I live for the last few months?Are you really into bondage with guys?

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't say you weren't. I said watch you say you were. How does that imply the opposite or do you just make shit up as you go?Well, since I named you, it's no great accomplishment to see that you were being baited. The best part was it didn't stop you from taking said bait. You couldn't help yourself.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you really into bondage with guys?Where did you hear that?

More importantly -- why would you be curious about that?

[DMC]

Where did you hear that?

More importantly -- why would you be curious about that?
Da fuk? It was just posted and you responded to it but you didn't deny it.

[DMC]

Well, since I named you, it's no great accomplishment to see that you were being baited. The best part was it didn't stop you from taking said bait. You couldn't help yourself.

But I predicted it, so was I baited or were you? I can show you that it was actually you if I cared enough to copy and paste.

[ChumpDumper]

But I predicted it, so was I baited or were you? I can show you that it was actually you if I cared enough to copy and paste.You predicted it after I did it.

Brilliant.

[DMC]

You predicted it after I did it.

Brilliant.

You cannot bait a person who realizes you're baiting. At that point you're just feeding them. I actually turned the snare onto you and you were pegged. It is what it is.

[ChumpDumper]

You cannot bait a person who realizes you're baiting.Sure you can.

It just happened to you. Now you're going to get all mad and probably launch into a bunch of ad hominems.

[DMC]

Sure you can.

It just happened to you. Now you're going to get all mad and probably launch into a bunch of ad hominems.

Not my style, but feel free to keep editing your posts. It shows you are frustrated and cannot stop trying to think of nifty retorts.

[Galileo]

So your support of the 3/5 rule reflects your support of slavery.

If you're just going to pitch straw all DMC-style, I'll just Godwin the thread and get it over with.

slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution.

[Galileo]

Taxation = slavery.

[ChumpDumper]

Not my styleSo why so you do it so often?
but feel free to keep editing your posts. It shows you are frustrated and cannot stop trying to think of nifty retorts.What does your editing of posts say about you?

Awaiting your denial.

[mavs>spurs]

guys breaking news, i was able to locate a pic of chump straight from his facebook tbh.....






























































































































































http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif


http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif





























































































http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Da fuk? It was just posted and you responded to it but you didn't deny it.So you heard it from m>s?

Where did he hear it?

Am I obligated to deny every false rumor about me? I'm much less insecure than he or you, so it's not that big a deal to me.

[mavs>spurs]

Where did he hear it?

wait, you mean it isn't common spurstalk knowledge that your bf goes off into your asshole with reckless abandon john rambo style? i think you're kidding yourself, tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

wait, you mean it isn't common spurstalk knowledge that your bf goes off into your asshole with reckless abandon john rambo style? i think you're kidding yourself, tbh.Wait, who cared enough about my personal life to start a discussion about it?

[mavs>spurs]

making fun of you /= a real serious discussion imho, strike 2!

[ChumpDumper]

making fun of you /= a real serious discussion imho, strike 2!There was never a strike 1 tbh.

So it's just making fun? Meaning it's not true?

[mavs>spurs]

no you come off as a real homo alright, my guess is it's true

[Galileo]

guys breaking news, i was able to locate a pic of chump straight from his facebook tbh.....






























































































































































http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif


http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif





























































































http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/037/9/9/Cat_chasing_her_tail_by_Feyrah.gif

This is CLASSIC!

:elephant

[ChumpDumper]

no you come off as a real homo alright, my guess is it's trueOh, so it's just a guess?

[Ignignokt]

the constitution along with the bill of rights was a document intended to limit the scope of govt. whether the constitution forgot to list certain negative rights does not negate the argument for adhering to the principles of it. Slavery was implied in a roundabout way, but it wasn't an endorsement of it. The principles of limited govt and inalienable rigths is what is at the meat of the constitution.

[Galileo]

Most blacks took the last names of Founding Fathers when they became free, in honor of their quest for liberty. African Americans named Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson abound.

Earl the Pearl Monroe

Richard Master Blaster Madison

Richard Jefferson

Al Jefferson

etc.

Sam Madison, Anthony Madison, Joe the Black Eagle Madison, Tianna Madison, etc.

[TDMVPDPOY]

only a homo knows a homo...

[Wild Cobra]

slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution. You are both an idiot and a liar, and probably pro-slavery.
Sorry, but it is. What do you think "three fifths of all other Persons" means?

[boutons_deux]

the constitution along with the bill of rights was a document intended to limit the scope of govt.

Bullshit. This is "state rights"/hate-destroy-govt revisionist propaganda bullshit

The Constitution was/is a document to replace the weak Articles of Confederation that made the country ungovernable, and to make a STRONGER Federal govt.

[DMC]

The problem with constitution chatter is that there are two sides, both with misinformation and misunderstandings of what the other side wants or what's even possible. Many of those who want changes to the constitution do not understand how it has to happen, and many who do not want changes don't understand what's in it to begin with. They both see it as an all or nothing thing. Everyone wants their rights, but they want to alter or remove the rights of others, rights they themselves don't exercise anyhow.

There have been less than 30 changes to the constitution since it was drafted, and many of those were just to get ratification by the states, a sort of compromise. It's very difficult to make constitutional changes, and doing away with it would require a civil war, which would still be difficult because the party that wants to keep it intact has all the guns.

[Galileo]

Sorry, but it is. What do you think "three fifths of all other Persons" means?

South Carolina voted against the 3/5th rule.

[Galileo]

Bullshit. This is "state rights"/hate-destroy-govt revisionist propaganda bullshit

The Constitution was/is a document to replace the weak Articles of Confederation that made the country ungovernable, and to make a STRONGER Federal govt.

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was about 2% under the Articles of Confederation. In 1912, federal spending was 1.75% of GDP. The government was the same size 125 years after the Constitution was ratified as it was before it was ratified.

[ps - today it is 25% of GDP]

[Blake]

South Carolina voted against the 3/5th rule.

I think South Carolina was clearly gunning for the slaves of the South to count as 100% human instead of 60%.

You're stupid.

[boutons_deux]

Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was about 2% under the Articles of Confederation. In 1912, federal spending was 1.75% of GDP. The government was the same size 125 years after the Constitution was ratified as it was before it was ratified.

[ps - today it is 25% of GDP]

proves nothing.

As societies grow larger, become more advanced, wealthy, they expect more from government. Happens in EVERY advanced country, and many of them have solved a whole bunch of problems that the USA is struggling with.

[Galileo]

I think South Carolina was clearly gunning for the slaves of the South to count as 100% human instead of 60%.

You're stupid.

That's the point, the 3/5th rule reduced the power of slave states. The 3/5th rule was an anti-slave measure.

[Galileo]

proves nothing.

As societies grow larger, become more advanced, wealthy, they expect more from government. Happens in EVERY advanced country, and many of them have solved a whole bunch of problems that the USA is struggling with.

That's not historically true, the US government gradually grew smaller after the civil war for about 50 years in a row which coincided with the greatest years of economic of the industrial revolution.

[Wild Cobra]

That's the point, the 3/5th rule reduced the power of slave states. The 3/5th rule was an anti-slave measure.
I agree with this and it acknowledges them as a person. (I believe "person" was the word used?)

The "person" part might have also been a concern to South Carolina though...

[Blake]

That's the point, the 3/5th rule reduced the power of slave states. The 3/5th rule was an anti-slave measure.

It was a compromise between slave and anti-slave delegates where the south got at least something out of the deal instead of nothing at all.

You're horrible at American history.

...which is even more laughable/sad considering the power of the googles.

[Galileo]

It was a compromise between slave and anti-slave delegates where the south got at least something out of the deal instead of nothing at all.

You're horrible at American history.

...which is even more laughable/sad considering the power of the googles.

Yeah it was a compromise, but the most pro-slave state (SC) lost what they wanted in the deal. The deal reduced the power of the slave states in the House and Electoral College.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah it was a compromise, but the most pro-slave state (SC) lost what they wanted in the deal. The deal reduced the power of the slave states in the House and Electoral College.
I would question if they should get anything but 0/5th for a slave when it comes to voting.

[Galileo]

I would question if they should get anything but 0/5th for a slave when it comes to voting.

The Constitution provided a built-in incentive to free slaves; the more slaves you free, the more seats you get in congress and the more votes you get in the Electoral College.

[Wild Cobra]

The Constitution provided a built-in incentive to free slaves; the more slaves you free, the more seats you get in congress and the more votes you get in the Electoral College.
Plus, the more they pay in direct taxation.

I don't think that's it.

[Blake]

Yeah it was a compromise, but the most pro-slave state (SC) lost what they wanted in the deal. The deal reduced the power of the slave states in the House and Electoral College.

and it also increased the southern power from what the north originally wanted.

The constitution compromised on the existence of slavery.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The Constitution provided a built-in incentive to free slaves; the more slaves you free, the more seats you get in congress and the more votes you get in the Electoral College.

Why does the constitution give slavery as an option in the 1st place?

[mavs>spurs]

Because of the time it was written they weren't about to lose the support of the people who largely supported slavery by adding it in, that's why they left it largely ambiguous on the subject so that they could fight that fight another day.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So you're saying the founding fathers were actually anti-slavery? If so, that's hilarious.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're saying the founding fathers were actually anti-slavery?Especially the ones who owned slaves.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Most blacks took the last names of Founding Fathers when they became free, in honor of their quest for liberty. African Americans named Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson abound.

Other blacks got the last name Jefferson because they were the bastard children Thomas Jefferson had with female slaves he owned :lol

:lmao "in honor of their quest for liberty" that's revisionist history bullshit. A lot of slaves picked the name of their last owner, were they also doing that to honor their last owner?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Especially the ones who owned slaves.

Yup, they were secretly anti-slavery. When they wrote the constitution it was with the intent to fight the slavery fight another day!

[Galileo]

and it also increased the southern power from what the north originally wanted.

The constitution compromised on the existence of slavery.

No, it increased northern power, SC voted against the 3/5th rule, the North voted for it.

[Galileo]

So you're saying the founding fathers were actually anti-slavery? If so, that's hilarious.

Millions and millions of black people have honored the Founding Fathers by naming themselves after the Founders.

[Galileo]

Especially the ones who owned slaves.

The Founders all spoke against slavery, look it up, they all opposed it.

[Galileo]

Other blacks got the last name Jefferson because they were the bastard children Thomas Jefferson had with female slaves he owned :lol

:lmao "in honor of their quest for liberty" that's revisionist history bullshit. A lot of slaves picked the name of their last owner, were they also doing that to honor their last owner?

Jefferson died in 1826, long before the Civil War. idiot.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Millions and millions of black people have honored the Founding Fathers by naming themselves after the Founders.

I already addressed that that was total bullshit revisionist history.

You also didn't give a direct answer to my question because you know what the answer is.

[Galileo]

Yup, they were secretly anti-slavery. When they wrote the constitution it was with the intent to fight the slavery fight another day!

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, you are a liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Millions and millions of black people have honored the Founding Fathers by naming themselves after the Founders.Yep. Including the ones who owned slaves. Honor can be unintentionally ironic.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The Founders all spoke against slavery, look it up, they all opposed it.

Yet they owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson even had bastard children with the slaves he owned.

[Galileo]

I already addressed that that was total bullshit revisionist history.

You also didn't give a direct answer to my question because you know what the answer is.

You are the revisionist, the blacks in the 1800s knew the founders stood for liberty. The Constitution is what freed the slaves. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Clay, Calhoun, Lee, Madison, Monroe, Marshall .... Ha, ha, ha, you lose!

[Galileo]

Yet they owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson even had bastard children with the slaves he owned.

Jefferson did not oppose interracial dating like Lincoln did. You got a problem with interracial dating?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

You are the revisionist, the blacks in the 1800s knew the founders stood for liberty. The Constitution is what freed the slaves. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Clay, Calhoun, Lee, Madison, Monroe, Marshall .... Ha, ha, ha, you lose!

An amendment added to the constitution is what freed the slaves. The founding father owned slaves and raped them.

I'm curious what your source is regarding the blacks of the 1800s knowing the founding fathers stood for liberty. Did the blacks who picked the name of their last owner once they were free think their last owner stood for liberty?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Jefferson did not oppose interracial dating like Lincoln did. You got a problem with interracial dating?

:rollin:rollin:rollin "interracial dating"

Having kids with your black slaves while you're married to a white woman isn't "interracial dating," it's having a bastard child as the product of rape. There's no way you're being serious.

[Galileo]

An amendment added to the constitution is what freed the slaves. The founding father owned slaves and raped them.

I'm curious what your source is regarding the blacks of the 1800s knowing the founding fathers stood for liberty. Did the blacks who picked the name of their last owner once they were free think their last owner stood for liberty?

Guess what? The US Constitution was the first in the world to allow amendments. The Founders knew there was not enough support to end slavery right away, but provided a way to do it down the road.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm curious what your source is regarding the blacks of the 1800s knowing the founding fathers stood for liberty.

Methinks Galileo won't be linking his source for this.

[Galileo]

:rollin:rollin:rollin "interracial dating"

Having kids with your black slaves while you're married to a white woman isn't "interracial dating," it's having a bastard child as the product of rape. There's no way you're being serious.

Really? Jefferson was 6' 2", wealthy and smart, and had women all over him. Sally Hemmings loved Jefferson. Why don't you BUTT OUT of others peoples business.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The Founders knew there was not enough support to end slavery right away, but provided a way to do it down the road.

Or they didn't wanna end slavery when they owned slaves and had a stable of women they could rape whenever they desired.

[Galileo]

Methinks Galileo won't be linking his source for this.

What's your source? Show me a source that all the blacks named Washington, Jefferson and Jackson weren't named after the Founders.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Really? Jefferson was 6' 2", wealthy and smart, and had women all over him. Sally Hemmings loved Jefferson. Why don't you BUTT OUT of others peoples business.

:lmao:lmao that's your response? :crydon't me such a meanie to Thomas Jefferson:cry

[ChumpDumper]

You are the revisionist, the blacks in the 1800s knew the founders stood for liberty. The Constitution is what freed the slaves. Washington [slaveowner], Jefferson [slaveowner], Jackson [slaveowner], Clay [slaveowner], Calhoun [declared slavery to be a "positive good"], Lee [slaveowner], Madison [slaveowner], Monroe [slaveowner], Marshall [slaveowner].... Ha, ha, ha, you lose!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What's your source? Show me a source that all the blacks named Washington, Jefferson and Jackson weren't named after the Founders.

The burden of proof doesn't rest on me to prove the negative. You're getting desperate.

[Blake]

Slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution, you are a liar.

what exactly do you think the phrase ”all other persons” is referring to?

[ElNono]

slaves were better off with their benevolent owners anyways

[Blake]

slaves were better off with their benevolent owners anyways

The WC Compromise

[Wild Cobra]

slaves were better off with their benevolent owners anyways
Cherry picking my ideas and paraphrasing them for out of context I see. How about considering how much better off the slaves of benevolent owners were than those of evil owners. Even if not liking the idea, these people could feel good for treating their slaves with dignity.

[Galileo]

Or they didn't wanna end slavery when they owned slaves and had a stable of women they could rape whenever they desired.

The blacks started slavery, they sold their own out of Africa. The whites never sold their own to Africa.

[Galileo]

The burden of proof doesn't rest on me to prove the negative. You're getting desperate.

You have the burden of proof. The evidence shows that the blacks were named after the Founding Fathers.

[Galileo]

slaves were better off with their benevolent owners anyways

The liberals should also be happy that the slaves got free health care.

[Blake]

Even if not liking the idea, these people could feel good for treating their slaves with dignity.

There are just too many different ways to go here.

I'll just go with lol per the usual

[Blake]

You have the burden of proof. The evidence shows that the blacks were named after the Founding Fathers.

no shit, goalpostileo

Evidence shows you are retarded.

[ChumpDumper]

You have the burden of proof. The evidence shows that the blacks were named after the Founding Fathers.The evidence shows that pretty much all the founding fathers you listed owned slaves.

[Galileo]

The evidence shows that pretty much all the founding fathers you listed owned slaves.

slavery was legal back then.

[Th'Pusher]

slavery was legal back then.
And the constitution did absolutely nothing to change that, so it had to be amended.

[ChumpDumper]

slavery was legal back then.Unsurprisingly, the slave owning founding fathers made sure of that.

[Galileo]

Unsurprisingly, the slave owning founding fathers made sure of that.

No, the British Empire made slavery legal. It was the Founding Fathers who started getting rid of slavery.

[Galileo]

And the constitution did absolutely nothing to change that, so it had to be amended.

The Constitution had incentives built into it to end slavery. It also had a provision to end the slave trade.

[ChumpDumper]

No, the British Empire made slavery legal. It was the Founding Fathers who started getting rid of slavery.They did fuck all about ending it. They kept their slaves.

[Galileo]

They did fuck all about ending it. They kept their slaves.

not true. 2/3 of the nation had freed their slaves by 1860. Most had freed them long prior to that.

[ChumpDumper]

not true. 2/3 of the nation had freed their slaves by 1860. Most had freed them long prior to that.they could have started the nation out slave free.

They just liked owning slaves too much.

[Galileo]

they could have started the nation out slave free.

They just liked owning slaves too much.

You are a liberal who hates America.

[ChumpDumper]

You are a liberal who hates America.You are a nutbag who loves slavery.

[Galileo]

You are a nutbag who loves slavery.

You don't even deny that you hate America.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't even deny that you hate America.You don't even deny you love slavery.

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY4WuyGGCD8