Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’

[Patriotic Voter]

What’s your problem? As he explained, the Constitution as written up until after the Civil War might appear to be trash to any black person. Or to any woman before 1919.

This is what Republicans do: post totally fictional headlines without reading the articles. Schism is no exception.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The Constitution may be sacred, but that doesn't mean it is perfect, or couldn't be improved.

It is sacred, which means it is a priceless antiquity to God, to remind Him of His work.

That is obviously not true. See the 27th Amendment.

 

[wist43]

Short answer, they haven't

Without researching, I'm not aware of any other country that deems the judiciary as part of the government. In the UK for example, the judiciary is absolutely politically independent and for good reason. It's perhaps the biggest "check and balance" to government
Not so in the USA.

And the idea that the power of the state rests with a government, answerable to the people is millennia old, and in England, you might say it started when the king of England was executed in 1649
And further reinforced in 1680 with the English Revolution and the 1689 Bill of Rights (neither of which you've heard of it seems)

And countries don't tend to "toss out" their constitution short of losing a catastrophic war.

The goals of the US Constitution may seem idealistic, but it has to be remembered that it not only recognized but supported slavery - I can't think of too many other national constitutions that have ever done that
But the chief criticism of the US Constitution, is that it is just so badly written and vague

Lastly, don't kid yourself that people come from all over the world for the Constitution, they come for $$$.

People come from all over the world for opportunity.

That opportunity only exists because we have a Constitution that restricts the government from interfering in peoples lives and business.

At least the Constitution used to do that.

The truth is, the Constitution has been under withering attack for decades by the left, and by the Establishment - which largely funds and steers the left.

Every Democrat, socialist, progressive, and communist in the country hates the Constitution. That's almost half the population.

You have members of the Supreme Court (liberals - including those appointed by Republicans) who have openly spoken out about their disdain for the Constitution - a document they've sworn to uphold.

And as for your slavery comment, virtually every country on earth practiced or participated in slavery and the slave trade.

More Chinese and other ethnicities have historically been slaves than have blacks. And of course blacks commonly enslaved other blacks in 18th century Africa.

That said, I agree with you that the principle shortcoming of the Constitution is that there are too many vague terms (used as loopholes) that have been exploited by the unscrupulous and criminally minded.

Both political parties today are hopelessly corrupt, with only a handful of powerless Republicans having any reverence for the Constitution at all. Sleazy Republicans like Mich McConnell are every bit as bad as any Democrat.

 

[eohrnberger]

What is so special about 1619, and if you tell me that is when the first slave were brought into America then you need to learn your history.

There were no slaves in America until 1642, that is when Massachusetts was the first State to pass any slave laws. Blacks came to America in 1619 as indentured servants and were treated the same as any white indentured servant. After their contract was up, normally 5-7 years, they were free people, they were give property and supplies by the person they worked for.

Yet another piece of history that Nikole Hannah-Jones and the majority of the lefties conveniently forgot to include in Nikole Hannah-Jones's race baiting screed.
Forgotten with apparent intent, as it was politically inconvenient.

Yet more dishonest, politically biased, from the gaslighting political propaganda media, that the left unquestioningly swallows whole cloth.

 

[Rich2018]

People come from all over the world for opportunity.

Yes, and for $$$
They absolutely do not come for the Constitution.

That opportunity only exists because we have a Constitution that restricts the government from interfering in peoples lives and business.

BS
Lots of other countries get flooded with refugees and asylum seekers looking for a better life

Do you really think the USA is wealthy because of its Constitution ?

At least the Constitution used to do that.

It is badly written and ambiguous now, it was badly written and ambiguous then.

The truth is, the Constitution has been under withering attack for decades by the left, and by the Establishment - which largely funds and steers the left.

For being badly written and ambiguous.

Every Democrat, socialist, progressive, and communist in the country hates the Constitution. That's almost half the population.

Newsflash: The Democrats WON the election in 2020 - so more than half (who care to vote that is) the population. If something is disliked by more then half the population, shouldn't it be scrapped ?
If socialists and communists dislike the Constitution, at least they get something right. It desperately needs a re-boot.

On the subject of voting, why is it that US election turn out is so low, if people "love" the Constitution so much ?

You have members of the Supreme Court (liberals - including those appointed by Republicans) who have openly spoken out about their disdain for the Constitution - a document they've sworn to uphold.

Good.

And as for your slavery comment, virtually every country on earth practiced or participated in slavery and the slave trade.

So the US Constitution was nothing special with regard to "freedom" then ?
(Slavery has never been legal in Britain Btw)

More Chinese and other ethnicities have historically been slaves than have blacks. And of course blacks commonly enslaved other blacks in 18th century Africa.

Not in the USA.

That said, I agree with you that the principle shortcoming of the Constitution is that there are too many vague terms (used as loopholes) that have been exploited by the unscrupulous and criminally minded.

Way too many
And where the Constitution is silent (eg: abortion), judges and lawyers do legal gymnastics to prove their point, one way or another
And in places where it is not, eg: the second amendment, judges and lawyers argue over grammatical meanings.

Both political parties today are hopelessly corrupt, with only a handful of powerless Republicans having any reverence for the Constitution at all. Sleazy Republicans like Mich McConnell are every bit as bad as any Democrat.

Well the Republican party most definitely is and attracts the worst kind of bigots to it.
But it's a bit unfair to damn political parties as "corrupt" when the US political system requires successful politicians to generate so much income to have any chance of success.

 

[Terryj]

Yes, and for $$$
They absolutely do not come for the Constitution.



BS
Lots of other countries get flooded with refugees and asylum seekers looking for a better life

Do you really think the USA is wealthy because of its Constitution ?



It is badly written and ambiguous now, it was badly written and ambiguous then.



For being badly written and ambiguous.



Newsflash: The Democrats WON the election in 2020 - so more than half (who care to vote that is) the population. If something is disliked by more then half the population, shouldn't it be scrapped ?
If socialists and communists dislike the Constitution, at least they get something right. It desperately needs a re-boot.

On the subject of voting, why is it that US election turn out is so low, if people "love" the Constitution so much ?



Good.



So the US Constitution was nothing special with regard to "freedom" then ?
(Slavery has never been legal in Britain Btw)



Not in the USA.



Way too many
And where the Constitution is silent (eg: abortion), judges and lawyers do legal gymnastics to prove their point, one way or another
And in places where it is not, eg: the second amendment, judges and lawyers argue over grammatical meanings.



Well the Republican party most definitely is and attracts the worst kind of bigots to it.
But it's a bit unfair to damn political parties as "corrupt" when the US political system requires successful politicians to generate so much income to have any chance of success.

(Slavery has never been legal in Britain Btw)
Rich, maybe you might want to revisit English history, England was very much involve in the slave trade throughout the British Empire. It wasn't until 1833 that England passed the The Slavery Abolition Law. England relied on slaves throughout the British Caribbean for their sugar and cotton plantations. Even in the U.S colonies (which were British) was the slave trade allowed, so England supported slavery in the Colonies from 1642 (when the first slave laws were passed) until the colonies gained their independence in 1783. So England condoned slavery in the colonies for 141 years, while the United States did away with slavery after a little over 80 years, 1783-1865.

 

[Rich2018]

(Slavery has never been legal in Britain Btw)
Rich, maybe you might want to revisit English history, England was very much involve in the slave trade throughout the British Empire. It wasn't until 1833 that England passed the The Slavery Abolition Law. England relied on slaves throughout the British Caribbean for their sugar and cotton plantations. Even in the U.S colonies (which were British) was the slave trade allowed, so England supported slavery in the Colonies from 1642 (when the first slave laws were passed) until the colonies gained their independence in 1783. So England condoned slavery in the colonies for 141 years, while the United States did away with slavery after a little over 80 years, 1783-1865.

Yes, British companies did engage in taking slaves from Africa and transporting them to North America

Yet they NEVER took them to England/Britain because slavery was never legal there.

 

[Terryj]

Yes, British companies did engage in taking slaves from Africa and transporting them to North America

Yet they NEVER took them to England/Britain because slavery was never legal there.

So I can then assume that you don't consider any of the British outline territories as part of Britain. The majority of slaves brought to the "new world" were sent to the British and French controlled islands in the Caribbean and to Brazil. Just because there was no slaves sent to the British mainland didn't mean that slavery was never legal in Britain. If the British were so against slavery, why did Queen Ann allow the North American colonies to make slave laws. The British didn't have clean hands when it came to the slave trade, they profited just as much from this trade as did Spain. The French abolished the African slave trade in the late 1790's, followed by the British in 1833, the U.S. in 1865.

 

[Rich2018]

So I can then assume that you don't consider any of the British outline territories as part of Britain. The majority of slaves brought to the "new world" were sent to the British and French controlled islands in the Caribbean and to Brazil. Just because there was no slaves sent to the British mainland didn't mean that slavery was never legal in Britain. If the British were so against slavery, why did Queen Ann allow the North American colonies to make slave laws. The British didn't have clean hands when it came to the slave trade, they profited just as much from this trade as did Spain. The French abolished the African slave trade in the late 1790's, followed by the British in 1833, the U.S. in 1865.

British colonies are as part of Britain as American Samoa and Puerto Rico are part of the USA

And yes it does mean that - slavery was NEVER legal in England/Britain. Ever.

Slavery was permitted throughout the colonies - but not in England/Britain itself - until the Slavery Abolition Act, (1833), abolished slavery in most British colonies, becoming law on August 1, 1834.

 

[Mircea]

Like I've said many times, the left are coming for the Constitution.

Yes, the whole plan is to crow-bar the US into a unity-State with an all powerful central government and eliminate the States, which would basically be administrative units that collect taxes for the all powerful central government.

What’s your problem? As he explained, the Constitution as written up until after the Civil War might appear to be trash to any black person. Or to any woman before 1919.

Notwithstanding your grotesque anachronistic view, had you lived in that era, when do you think you might have freed your slaves, before or after the Civil War?

 

[Mircea]

So one person, who the U.S. Constitution was NEVER written for labels it in his opinion "kind of trash" now becomes in your mind the entirety of the Left and some tidal wave of a Leftist movement to take away your precious Constitution.

To highlight the fatal flaw in your claim, why would it have been written for him?

The whole freaking world practice slavery. How do you think slaves got to be slaves? It was because African tribes practiced slavery and were all too happy to sell their slaves to the Arab Muslims, and then 600 years later sell them to Europeans.

Ever hear of Stanley Livingston? He was the first White person to travel more than a few miles from the coasts into the interior of Africa. In the 1880s.

I know Liberals would have us falsely believe that White people were roaming all over Africa snatching up slaves, but that's not how it happened.

Hell, even the Papal States had slaves. Those slaves weren't freed until after the US Civil War, and only then because armies over-ran the Papal Estates.

My ancestors were slaves for nearly 600 years on a papal estate in what is now Romania.

Quit acting like White people in America were the only people on Earth to ever have slaves.

“It [the Constitution] was written by slavers and colonists, and white people who were willing to make deals with slavers and colonists.”

True or False

It's false because it's a lie of omission.

The Declaration of Independence did not create the United States. It created 13 separate independent sovereign countries.

Those 13 countries were vulnerable to attack by Britain, France, and Spain.

I forgive you for being educated by Liberals who withheld truth from you, like the truth that the US under the Articles of Confederation paid annual tribute to the Barbary Coast States because the US was too weak to protect itself and the truth that US also simultaneously paid an annual tribute to France to keep the French from raiding US naval and cargo vessels, stealing the ships, killing crewmen of English descent, and impressing other crewmen as slaves because the US was too weak to protect itself.

Adjusted for inflation to 2020 US Dollars, the annual tributes ran into the $100s of $Millions.

Liberals gloss over "....to the shores of Tripoli...."

That's when the US under the Constitution finally had the strength to put the Barbary Coast States in their place.

And Liberals gloss over the quasi-War of 1805, when the US under the Constitution now had the strength to take it to the French and the US sunk or captured 72 French ships including one 96-gun ship and nearly half a dozen 74-76 gun ships, plus recovered US ships the French had stolen.

You have no freaking idea how fragile the early US really was.

Without a united front, Britain, France, and/or Spain would have carved us up.

I don't know where you'd be living, but it wouldn't be the US you know now.

You should be grateful the Constitution was written and honor the sacrifices of all, including Black Slaves, for giving the early-US a chance to survive.

“They [the Founders] didn’t ask anybody who looked like me what they thought about the Constitution.”

True or False

Why would we ask people who couldn't speak English and couldn't even read or write their own language to write the Constitution?

That would be like asking a 3-year old what they thought.

“[A] modern interpretation of the Constitution is essential.”

True or False

That is demonstrably false.

A "modern" interpretation is alleged to be "essential" because the goal is to impose the views of the minority on the majority, which is not even remotely democratic.

“This document was written without the consent of Black and Brown people in this country, and without the consent of women in this country.”

True or False

Yet another anachronism. Had you lived then, you would not be talking the way you are now.

It is disingenuous to judge past cultures by modern standards, but Liberals enjoy being disingenuous and deceitful.

The Tanzimat Reforms of 1876 in the Ottoman Empire gave women voting rights and political power and a host of other rights long before White Christians thought it was cool.

How many "Native American" tribes had female chiefs or tribal leaders?

Why aren't you condemning them?

More to the point, why aren't you condemning "Native Americans" for the genocide they committed and slavery they practiced before Europeans arrived?

Could it be you're bigoted?

 

[Rich2018]

How many "Native American" tribes had female chiefs or tribal leaders?

Why aren't you condemning them?

More to the point, why aren't you condemning "Native Americans" for the genocide they committed and slavery they practiced before Europeans arrived?

Could it be you're bigoted?

Comparing the infant USA to the Barbarian North American tribes is no excuse

I would have thought the framers of the Constitution were aiming for something better than Indian tribes.

 

[Nickyjo]

Yes, the whole plan is to crow-bar the US into a unity-State with an all powerful central government and eliminate the States, which would basically be administrative units that collect taxes for the all powerful central government.


Notwithstanding your grotesque anachronistic view, had you lived in that era, when do you think you might have freed your slaves, before or after the Civil War?

Don't understand the question. But I hope I would have been an abolitionist if I lived in that era. Where we sit affects where we stand, as the saying goes.

 

[LouC]

Yes, the whole plan is to crow-bar the US into a unity-State with an all powerful central government and eliminate the States, which would basically be administrative units that collect taxes for the all powerful central government.


Notwithstanding your grotesque anachronistic view, had you lived in that era, when do you think you might have freed your slaves, before or after the Civil War?

 

[Rich2018]

Don't understand the question. But I hope I would have been an abolitionist if I lived in that era. Where we sit affects where we stand, as the saying goes.

It depends where you grew up really.

 

[Nickyjo]

Yes, the whole plan is to crow-bar the US into a unity-State with an all powerful central government and eliminate the States, which would basically be administrative units that collect taxes for the all powerful central government.


Notwithstanding your grotesque anachronistic view, had you lived in that era, when do you think you might have freed your slaves, before or after the Civil War?

To respond to Mircea, I don’t believe you can show there there is any insidious plan to strengthen the central government. Just like Topsy in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, it just grew. When people, whether corporations or civil rights activists couldn’t get what they wanted locally, they looked to DC. They called on the Feds to move Indians out of the way, build a railroad across the country, take land from Mexico, control other countries in the hemisphere, etc. And same forces might have pushed for local control on other topics. There has always been a tension between local and national, since the beginning, but Founders vision couldn’t last modernity. And our people are not ideological, but practical above all.

 

[LouC]

Okie Dokie!

 

[Bullseye]

What’s your problem? As he explained, the Constitution as written up until after the Civil War might appear to be trash to any black person. Or to any woman before 1919.

Only the ignorant ones. The ORIGINAL Constitution was written with a 3/5s rule designed to curtail the power of slave states. From the time it was signed, Congress did as much as possible to curtail, if not end slavery. Slavery was abolished in several northern states and slave states were only admitted to the union if a corresponding anti-slave state was also admitted.

 

[Roadvirus]

LouC, the first mistake Elie Mystal made was judging the penning of the Constitution through the lens of today's society.

That's the mistake alot of today's Liberal race-baiters make about damn near everything.

 

[LouC]

Only the ignorant ones. The ORIGINAL Constitution was written with a 3/5s rule designed to curtail the power of slave states. From the time it was signed, Congress did as much as possible to curtail, if not end slavery. Slavery was abolished in several northern states and slave states were only admitted to the union if a corresponding anti-slave state was also admitted.

Bulllshit!

How can you post such an incredibly and undeniably false narrative?

 

[Bullseye]

Bulllshit!

How can you post such an incredibly and undeniably false narrative?

It's absolutely truth. Study some actually history instead of LW blather.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You know, we don't have that Constitution as written by white slave holders, our Constitution has been amended 27 times since it was written.

Maybe Elie Mystal forgot about the 13th, 14th, 15th and the 19th amendments, that's the great thing about our Constitution, it can be amended to make right the things our founders neglected. Our Constitution can change with the times and that is done by majority consent of We the People through the amendment process. If our Constitution was to be set in stone there would have been no provision in it for the amendment process and that is what makes this document great. People can piss and moan about how it was founded, but that was then and this is now. Our Constitution is for ALL citizens of the United States and as it stands today it is color blind.

All great points.

The constitution itself is wonderful and inspired in so many ways. Given the environment of the time and the cultural flows, it was near perfect.

As things have changed, so has the constitution.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’


Like I've said many times, the left are coming for the Constitution.

This is part of the media tour and promotion. Essay's, books, and interpretive dance numbers are next, and that's when NPR will pick up on it.

I keep copies of the Nation around. In case I run out of toilet paper.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Don't mind me, I'm just here for the froth.

 

[Schism]

I keep copies of the Nation around. In case I run out of toilet paper.

Stop lying, you don't use toilet paper.