Reply With Quote
more logical fail.
you probably believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
I never said the Cons ution stated that Blacks can't vote.
You are the liar, liar.
Where?
more logical fail.
you probably believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
You still don't get it, do you?
9/11 was not a conspiracy, it was an inside job.more logical fail.
you probably believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
I was talking about you.Arguing with the Chumper is like arguing with someone that has only 60% of a brain.
good point.
The color of a person's skin is not mentioned when it comes to voting in the Cons ution before the 15th Amendment.
Since it's not strictly prohibited, you are saying it has been allowed all along.
I've gotten it for a while now, but since you asked me to point out where it states that Blacks can't vote, I figured I would do the same since it's you that's actually making a claim.
You are trying to play with semantics and you are coming across as a huge fail, liar.
Last edited by Blake; 04-29-2010 at 08:31 PM.
cool story.
The Cons ution allows me to rape people, since it doesn't explicitly deny it.
Now you are catching on. Yes, you correct, rape is a crime under state law. The Cons ution does not force the States to pass these laws.
The Cons ution allowed James Madison to own his 100 slaves and never free them or let them vote.
but it does not mean it allows for it. It simply doesn't address it.
It's why you fail and are a liar.
No, it does allow it. In fact, there is a long history of laws which state that a husband can not legally rape his wife.
absence =/= allowance
you're an idiot.
depends on the context, too complicated for you to understand.
Basically, the Cons ution alows the States to do anything that is not prohibited by the text of the Cons ution.
You are still trying to play a semantics game and you continue to fail.
Pretty simple.
You're the one playing semantics. Either that or you have trouble understanding the English language.
I'm not certain how your line of reasoning accounts for Marbury v. Madison, Hunter's Lessee, and Supreme Court interpretations of the Cons ution sublimating state interpretations. The states do not have carte blanche to do as they will when the Cons ution does not explicitly deny something.
Don't try to use logic and reason, because as we all know, everyone except Galileo hates the founding fathers.
The States can let black people vote if they want to. The Cons ution allows them to do it. It has been this way since 1788.
I already said the States can do anything unless they are prohibited from doing so by the Cons ution, so citing court cases just makes my argument.
If a state prohibits Blacks from voting, then it is because the Cons ution did not make a specific allowance for Blacks to vote as you clearly suggested.
You are the liar and you are losing at whatever semantics game you are trying to play.
Liar.
More facts about the 3/5th rule:
* the rule was cut in conjunction with the continental congress outlawing slavery in the Northwest territory. This vast territory includes present day Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and most of Minnesota. In 1787, slavery was outlawed here. This was at a time when slavery was all over the world for thousands of years.
* the deal also gave each state 2 votes in the Senate.
Since the northern states tended to be smaller, this gave the northern states more clout in congress and in the Electoral College.
Small states like New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut got two Senators. Massachusetts was considered a big state at the time, but was landlocked and would eventually become small. Vermont and Maine were not yet states, but had their own local governments that had been pushing for inevitable statehood for years. New York at the time of the Cons ution was only of average population. Mid-states like Delaware and Maryland, although they had slavery, were very small and had a weaker slavery component (and they are quite northern). Georgia, a southern slave state, although low in population had huge room to grow and would eventually become a large state. Virginia, the largest state, had a western group of anti-slavers and West Virginia eventually became a new state as well with 2 Senators. North Carolina was not a big state but had huge expansion possibilities in the West. South Carolina was a large state at the time, one of the biggest by population.
Other areas that were being settled at the time were Kentucky (which was too far north to ever have many slaves), Tennessee (which only had moderate slavery), and the NW territories, especially Ohio which never had slavery.
Everything about the 2 votes per state rule went against the slave holders.
The Founding Fathers stacked the deck against slavery in the Senate and in the NW territory.
The Senate also had many powers not found in the House, including ratifying treaties, and confirming cabinet positions, ambassadors, and federal judges (including the Suprem Court).
And on top of it all, the 3/5 rule provided an incentive to free slaves as each state got more clout in congress and in the Electoral College if they freed them.
Yet the nutjob leftist racists do not see this.
I believe you are conflating the text of the Cons ution with its interpretation by the Supreme Court.
If that happens, it is not the fault of the Cons ution, it is the fault of the State. The Cons ution allows blacks to vote. You are a lying sack of .
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
