Reply With Quote
So the Cons ution allowed and codified slavery, which James Madison liked this since he never freed even one of the hundred slaves he owned and his state only had to pay 3/5 of the taxes on them they did for free men.
That's a fair statement, but the Supreme court is supposed to follow the text of the Cons ution. If they don't, it is the fault of the Court, not of the Cons ution.
So the Cons ution allowed and codified slavery, which James Madison liked this since he never freed even one of the hundred slaves he owned and his state only had to pay 3/5 of the taxes on them they did for free men.
No, the Cons ution allowed the slave states to free their slaves. All of the northern states did it, and most slaves were freed in the border states. James Madison was stuck in Virginia which wouldn't free their slaves.
Madison treid to get it done, they had a big debate over it in 1829/1830 at the Virginia Cons utional convention over Madison's objections, and then in the Virginia legislature in 1832 over the objections of Madison's followers.
Perhaps. You'd get very different descriptions from Thomas or Scalia versus O'Connor or Stephens on what that text actually means, or how widely interpretive penumbras emanate. The Cons ution is subject to the whims of any 5-4 decision at any time. Just look at Citizens United - decades of precedent reversed for seemingly no reason, other than transparent political machinations. And this current Court is supposed to be the non-activist, textually committed one.
Galileo follows this method:
Read the plain language of the text and consult the Founding Fathers for gray areas.
He could have sold all his slaves to a person in a state which allowed the freeing of slaves.
He didn't.
James Madison kept about 100 slaves to his death, never freeing any of them.
That's what eventually happened. His wife Dolley Madison left slaves for her kid, who left them for Daniel Webster, who freed them. It wasn't easy to free slaves in Virginia back in those days leading up to the Civl War, because of the anti-slave crack-down after the Nat Turner revolt.
So thanks for confirming that James Madison kept 100 slaves and chose not to free them.
In that respect, until the 15th amendment, it also allowed for laws against Blacks voting. To throw it out there in this manner is misleading and a terrible play at a semantics game.
The Cons ution allows blacks to vote. You are a lying sack of .
You are the lying sack of , lying sack of .
You still don't understand the concept of delegation of powers. Blacks were voting for years in northern states before the 15th amendment because the Cons ution allows them to vote.In that respect, until the 15th amendment, it also allowed for laws against Blacks voting. To throw it out there in this manner is misleading and a terrible play at a semantics game.
You are the lying sack of , lying sack of .
You simply can't understand the difference between the word "allow" and require".
I can't tell if you are a liberal or a neocon, but whatever you are, you are an idiot.
you are a lying sack of , lying sack of .
Wrong. The states allowed them to vote.
You are simply misusing the the word "allow" in this context.You simply can't understand the difference between the word "allow" and require".
The Cons ution does not explicitly ensure the right to vote.
It's a misleading statement on your part and a stupid play with words that ends in nothing but fail.
I don't care if you are a liberal, neocon or a twoofer. There is no doubt that you are the idiot in this thread and it started with a horrible joke with racial overtures.I can't tell if you are a liberal or a neocon, but whatever you are, you are an idiot.
If smoking is allowed at a restaurant, it is not ensured. I said the Cons ution allows blacks to vote.Wrong. The states allowed them to vote.
You are simply misusing the the word "allow" in this context.
The Cons ution does not explicitly ensure the right to vote.
It's a misleading statement on your part and a stupid play with words that ends in nothing but fail.
I don't care if you are a liberal, neocon or a twoofer. There is no doubt that you are the idiot in this thread and it started with a horrible joke with racial overtures.
If a state allows smoking in bars, that does not mean every bar will permit smoking.
Face, you hate America, you hate the Founding Fathers, you hate George Washington & James Madison, you hate the Cons ution; you love big brother and you love Obama.
If you were offended by the joke, that makes you an easily offended liberal.
I guess it wouldn't really be a sweet, sweet heaven if you were forbidden to torture your enemies.
Wouldn't be as funny either. Ha ha.
Good one.
Even heaven cannot contain the risen Patriots. They burst its bounds and roam to wreak havoc from the gates of heaven down to earth, to persecute their enemies again.
Tribal motif of fierceness, modulated by wounded honor (outrage). Expressed as just (or otherwise expedient) (or otherwise *sportive* and facetious) sadism.
Perh. related to the cult of the heroic grimace, only much more demonstratively. Holding your mouth just right isn't as important as making the poor bas suffer.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-05-2010 at 03:41 AM.
Haw haw haw.
If we're not good, our angel ancestors may trample us underfoot at the gates of paradise just like they did Obama.
It's a stern lesson for the youngsters too. Don't forget the propaedeutic angle, G.
Serious teaching opportunity, dude.
A sadistically-tinged death fantasy about the sitting President, funny?
The question should be: what's not funny about that?
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-05-2010 at 05:51 AM.
Hee hee hee, haw haw haw.
Against all odds, you bombed. With material like that I can't really grasp how you failed, Galileo. Your effort here was not worthy of the greats, though it mentioned many of them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
