Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 303132
Results 373 to 376 of 376
  1. #373

    Re: Kaepernick Protesting American Flag



    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post

    So we can see the disconnect here.
    To intimate that the Constitution and Declaration are not capable of being the founding of a current day country is laughable and insulting. Which is why many people are upset with CK's protest. They view it as an insult to the ideals the country was built on. No one has said the country was perfect, or lived up the ideals. No country has and no country will.
    There will also always be a big problem with comparing the past with today's standards. Today's achievements stand on top of the achievements from the past. And tomorrow's achievement will stand on today's.
    I am sure it could be the founding of a modern day country, but not any developed one. I am sure that Burundi would be served just fine by it because, after all, being 3/5ths of something is more than being 0% of nothing.

    I hope you are not serious though, I mean up until now we may not have agreed but I got the impression you were intelligent, but if you are going to sit here and tell me that starting a developed country ESPECIALLY the united states with telling black people they are worth 3/5ths of a white man, then I guess I was duped. You are right if you believe that is the correct way to do it, then everyone can see the disconnect. If you think of black people only worth 3/5ths of whites I can see why CK using his rights bothers you and black people IN SOME CASES being shot unjustifiably doesn't bother you.

    I also think in the modern era the electoral college is the most vestigial government function when we can order pizza through an app, we can vote on dancing with the stars with an app, but we just cant vote the truly democratic way, albeit, America was never intended to be a democracy.

    Or term limits in congress to keep people from being career politicians. And to keep them from being able to raise their own pay. There are 340 + millionaires in congress the last term I did any research on it, that too is a huge flaw in the constitution.

    Now I do not think you are a racist (could be wrong) I think you just got caught in the feels and did not think about what the constitution had in it, and dont want to admit that for a modern developed nation such as the US, it would not be something that you would want to use as it was written. That said, if black folks being 3/5's a white man and indians being nothing, career politicians, and a government body that does not truly represent the decision of a nation, then have a ball man.
    Last edited by Ranger; 09-21-2016 at 08:42 AM.





  2. #374

    Re: Kaepernick Protesting American Flag

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger View Post
    I am sure it could be the founding of a modern day country, but not any developed one. I am sure that Burundi would be served just fine by it because, after all, being 3/5ths of something is more than being 0% of nothing.

    I hope you are not serious though, I mean up until now we may not have agreed but I got the impression you were intelligent, but if you are going to sit here and tell me that starting a developed country ESPECIALLY the united states with telling black people they are worth 3/5ths of a white man, then I guess I was duped. You are right if you believe that is the correct way to do it, then everyone can see the disconnect. If you think of black people only worth 3/5ths of whites I can see why CK using his rights bothers you and black people IN SOME CASES being shot unjustifiably doesn't bother you.

    I also think in the modern era the electoral college is the most vestigial government function when we can order pizza through an app, we can vote on dancing with the stars with an app, but we just cant vote the truly democratic way, albeit, America was never intended to be a democracy.

    Or term limits in congress to keep people from being career politicians. And to keep them from being able to raise their own pay. There are 340 + millionaires in congress the last term I did any research on it, that too is a huge flaw in the constitution.

    Now I do not think you are a racist (could be wrong) I think you just got caught in the feels and did not think about what the constitution had in it, and dont want to admit that for a modern developed nation such as the US, it would not be something that you would want to use as it was written. That said, if black folks being 3/5's a white man and indians being nothing, career politicians, and a government body that does not truly represent the decision of a nation, then have a ball man.
    No, I am totally serious. What you are doing is projecting today's standards and achievements to the times of 1700's. You do know that compromise was part of the Constitution right? Perhaps you could point out the text of the Declaration of Independence that you seem to have problems with. See in those founding documents, they were worded precisely to undercut slavery. Which makes them tremendous documents, even for today.


    Here's a nice little article about it (shortened due to character limits). Perhaps Kap should read it.


    One hundred and fifty years ago this month, the 13th Amendment officially was ratified, and with it, slavery finally was abolished in America. The New York World hailed it as “one of the most important reforms ever accomplished by voluntary human agency.”

    The newspaper said the amendment “takes out of politics, and consigns to history, an institution incongruous to our political system, inconsistent with justice and repugnant to the humane sentiments fostered by Christian civilization.”

    With the passage of the 13th Amendment—which states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”—the central contradiction at the heart of the Founding was resolved.

    Eighty-nine years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed all men to be free and equal, race-based chattel slavery would be no more in the United States.

    While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.

    Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.

    Such arguments have unsettling implications for the health of our republic. They teach citizens to despise their founding charter and to be ashamed of their country’s origins. They make the Constitution an object of contempt rather than reverence. And they foster alienation and resentment among African-American citizens by excluding them from our Constitution.

    The received wisdom in this case is wrong. If we turn to the actual text of the Constitution and the debates that gave rise to it, a different picture emerges. The case for a racist, pro-slavery Constitution collapses under closer scrutiny.

    Race and the Constitution

    The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

    The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons (a euphemism for slaves) and Indians not taxed (in which case, it is their tax-exempt status, and not their skin color, that matters). The first references to “race” and “color” occur in the 15th Amendment’s guarantee of the right to vote, ratified in 1870.

    The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.

    Contrary to a popular misconception, the Constitution also does not say that only white males who owned property could vote. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote (Article I, Section 2, Clause 1). It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting in perhaps as many as 10 states at the time of the founding (the precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites).

    Slavery and the Constitution

    Not only does the Constitution not mention blacks or whites, but it also doesn’t mention slaves or slavery. Throughout the document, slaves are referred to as persons to underscore their humanity. As James Madison remarked during the constitutional convention, it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

    The Constitution refers to slaves using three different formulations: “other persons” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1), and a “person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof” (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3).

    Although these circumlocutions may not have done much to improve the lot of slaves, they are important, as they denied constitutional legitimacy to the institution of slavery. The practice remained legal, but slaveholders could not invoke the supreme law of the land to defend its legitimacy. These formulations make clear that slavery is a state institution that is tolerated—but not sanctioned—by the national government and the Constitution.

    Reading the original Constitution, a visitor from a foreign land would simply have no way of knowing that race-based slavery existed in America. As Abraham Lincoln would later explain:

    Thus, the thing is hid away, in the Constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death.

    One could go even further and argue, as Frederick Douglass did in the lead-up to the Civil War, that none of the clauses of the Constitution should be interpreted as applying to slaves. The “language of the law must be construed strictly in favor of justice and liberty,” he argued.

    Because the Constitution does not explicitly recognize slavery and does not therefore admit that slaves were property, all the protections it affords to persons could be applied to slaves. “Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed up by a right moral sentiment, would put an end to slavery in America,” Douglass concluded.


    http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/28/wh...e-and-slavery/





  3. #375

    Re: Kaepernick Protesting American Flag

    CK's protest should cover this killing too.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...921-story.html





  4. #376

    Re: Kaepernick Protesting American Flag

    Quote Originally Posted by blah3 View Post
    No, I am totally serious. What you are doing is projecting today's standards and achievements to the times of 1700's. You do know that compromise was part of the Constitution right? Perhaps you could point out the text of the Declaration of Independence that you seem to have problems with. See in those founding documents, they were worded precisely to undercut slavery. Which makes them tremendous documents, even for today.

    *Conjecture*

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/28/wh...e-and-slavery/
    Definitely hesitant to resurrect this shit show, but your first part...Yes I am projecting today's standards on that time because...that was the whole point of my statement. It was revolutionary back then, but you would not use it to start a country TODAY. So yes when making that statement I have to project today's standards on that time period. So the whole,"You are projecting todays standards on that time period," well yeah, that is what I said and the positive claim I made. I would not use the constitution to start OUR country on the 30th of September 2016.

    Then that whole article...wow. I will not dismiss the entire article as their are kernels of truth to be gleaned, but almost that entire article was his interpretation, and the interpretation of others. Then taking into account the author it is hard to read that seriously, David Azerrad is one of the most right wing conservative people whose bias is obvious. Now he surely can be affiliated with whichever party he chooses, as well as interpret the data as he so chooses. That said he defeats his own argument when he references James Madison who said,"it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” That was a quote from James Madison. A guy who was there, a framer, a signer, and architect of the constitution. Madison admits that the idea that people could be property is wrong, yet it is in there anyway. What I glean from this si that Madison knew that it is what it meant, as he makes no argument for ambiguity, hence that was the real meaning. Take everything else away but that statement, and it is hard to argue that the Constitution is not telling people that they are worth less than others. I will take the word of a guy who signed and constructed the damn thing than some hack republican writer who interprets the data to fit his narrative.

    I again think the constitution was revolutionary for its day and those men had several generations of foresight which in it of itself is impressive, but to say that the constitution was not inherently demeaning to people AS IT WAS WRITTEN not how it is interpreted at the very least opens the door for inequality among humans if not by its very existence condones it. If it were not to be condoned by any means by the US government, then why allow that part in ? IF it were so reprehensible to them, then they would have had it stricken before it became the supreme law of the land.

    I think we have both exhausted our view points and from this point forward it will become circular unless there is anything other than an article written by a guy whose love for the constitution is so great that he rarely lets an opportunity pass where he wants to interject more Catholicism into politics even though separation of church and state was on of the crux's of our founders.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland