The US Constitution is Incapable of Dealing with Racism in America.

[dixon01767]

In it's original form the Constitution didn't contain that amendment - hence your mistaken use of the PAST tense

In it's current form it does. So when speaking of the Constitution in its current form, one uses the PRESENT tense:

Present tense: "The Constitution contains...."
Past tense: "The Constitution contained..."

I hope you can finally understand now and we can put this issue to bed.

You putting quotation marks around "The Constitution contained..." doesnt mean I ever stated it. Just making the shit up as you go along.

 

[Torus34]

You putting quotation marks around "The Constitution contained..." doesnt mean I ever stated it. Just making the shit up as you go along.

Oh, my goodness!

Can't one of youse guys write a well English? Huh? Huh?

;-))

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[dixon01767]

Oh, my goodness!

Can't one of youse guys write a well English? Huh? Huh?

;-))

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

???? Is that sarcasm? One does not "write a well English"

 

[Torus34]

???? Is that sarcasm? One does not "write a well English"

Hi, dixon!

Naw. Just a bit of gentle kidding. As a writer and as one with a deep love of and for this marvelous code we call the English language, I simply tried to introduce a bit of humor.

Sarcasm and snark are often seen here. They're cheap shots. They indicate a lack of respect for the individual behind the 'handle'. I try not to use those particular slings and arrows.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Rich2018]

You putting quotation marks around "The Constitution contained..." doesnt mean I ever stated it. Just making the shit up as you go along.

Those quotation marks indicate an example of how statements in the past and present tense may differ.

Was that not clear to you ?

 

[dixon01767]

Those quotation marks indicate an example of how statements in the past and present tense may differ.

Was that not clear to you ?

Ah, I thought you were quoting me. Soooooo how about quoting this past tense comment of mine regarding the Constitution that youve been talking about for 3 days.

 

[dixon01767]

Hi, dixon!

Naw. Just a bit of gentle kidding. As a writer and as one with a deep love of and for this marvelous code we call the English language, I simply tried to introduce a bit of humor.

Sarcasm and snark are often seen here. They're cheap shots. They indicate a lack of respect for the individual behind the 'handle'. I try not to use those particular slings and arrows.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Ah. OK Nancy. If you can locate your nads, next time you want to show a lack of respect for me, you can be more direct. Clears up the confusion and I still wont care.

 

[Rich2018]

Ah, I thought you were quoting me. Soooooo how about quoting this past tense comment of mine regarding the Constitution that youve been talking about for 3 days.

No, try to keep up

See post# 202

 

[Torus34]

Ah. OK Nancy. If you can locate your nads, next time you want to show a lack of respect for me, you can be more direct. Clears up the confusion and I still wont care.

Hi!

You might have quite a wait, I'm afraid.

Regards, best to you and yours.

 

[dixon01767]

Hi!

You might have quite a wait, I'm afraid.

Regards, best to you and yours.

Cant find them, can you?

 

[dixon01767]

No, try to keep up

See post# 202

Make a point if you can. The constitution was amended in the past.

 

[swing_voter]

It's all indicating a breakdown of the US system and the US Constitution has no way of dealing with the issue.

What "break down?" Where?

Of necessity to hold the union together, the US Constitution was devised and written to appease all of the individual states/ parties. It's quite likely that made it incapable of dealing with racism in a sure and final way.

Why does it need to address "racism?" We have laws to reduce racism.

Other countries lost their right to hold slaves and were able to deal with the issue more thoroughly. America didn't put the matter to bed and now it's stuck with the problem in the 21st. century, where demands of humanity are calling for the issue to be rectified. And America seems to be resisting coming to an answer.

Britain outlawed slavery in 1835, 30 years before America did. That's good but it's not like Britain never had slavery at all.

Spain outlawed slavery 30 years after we did.

Hence, the tyranny of the Trump regime that has rode the issue into the WH, to his advantage.

Racism? Maybe a little.




.

Can the US Constitution save the country? Is it equipped with the necessary means to stop an authoritarian who is intent of fascist rule? Or will some other mechanism need to deal with the problem?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

What "break down?" Where?




Why does it need to address "racism?" We have laws to reduce racism.



Britain outlawed slavery in 1835, 30 years before America did. That's good but it's not like Britain never had slavery at all.

Spain outlawed slavery 30 years after we did.




Racism? Maybe a little.




.

I hope these are rhetorical questions.

 

[Rich2018]

Make a point if you can. The constitution was amended in the past.

27 times

So the issue is that you don't understand the difference between past tense and present tense.

And although the 27th amendment was ratified in the past, it is still part of the present form of the Constitution, not the past form.

Let us know when your understanding of grammar improves, to the point you're able to make a worthwhile contribution t the thread.

 

[Waddy]

No Constitution can deal with "racism."

Because of a terrible mistake that British colonists made in 1619, Americans in 2020 are simply experiencing the inevitable consequences.

The situation will NEVER be resolved.

It is intractable.

So long as there is a "United States of America," there will be "racism."

You're right, it is intractable. There are things government can do, does do, to minimize the effects. But at the core it's a people problem, and won't be solved by government. And long after the USA is gone it will still be a people problem. Because it's human nature. I've lived all over the world growing up and as an adult. I've seen much worse racism that anything in the United States.
Try being a Korean under Japanese rule. Or an Armenian under Turks. Or a Uyghur under the Chinese.

 

[Rich2018]

Try being a Korean under Japanese rule. Or an Armenian under Turks. Or a Uyghur under the Chinese.

Problems that don't happen under a true Constitutional government.

 

[Waddy]

Problems that don't happen under a true Constitutional government.

Exactly. Thanks for making my point. This is a wonderful country. Ain't it great living under a true Constitution.

 

[Rich2018]

Exactly. Thanks for making my point. This is a wonderful country. Ain't it great living under a true Constitution.

What would be an untrue constitution ?

 

[Waddy]

What would be an untrue constitution ?

Lots of dictatorships rule with made up Constitutions they hand craft to their own purpose or ignore altogether. China even has a Constitution. A real nice one. Lots of rights and freedoms, and everything. Xi Jinping loves it. I doubt the Uyghurs nor the Tibetans think much of it, though. The people of Hong Kong recently voiced their thoughts on it, but it didn't get them anywhere. Probably a lot of mainland Chinese don't much care for it either, but they can't say all that much.......

Constitution of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rich2018]

Lots of dictatorships rule with made up Constitutions they hand craft to their own purpose or ignore altogether. China even has a Constitution. A real nice one. Lots of rights and freedoms, and everything. Xi Jinping loves it. I doubt the Uyghurs nor the Tibetans think much of it, though. The people of Hong Kong recently voiced their thoughts on it, but it didn't get them anywhere. Probably a lot of mainland Chinese don't much care for it either, but they can't say all that much.......

Constitution of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So you mean by "True" constitution, to be one by a true democracy.

 

[Waddy]

So you mean by "True" constitution, to be one by a true democracy.

You tell me what "true" means. You're the one who first used that word. See post #241

 

[Rich2018]

You tell me what "true" means. You're the one who first used that word. See post #241

A true democracy has free and fair elections
Those elections are by secret ballot
Any citizen is eligible to stand for election*
Every citizen is eligible to vote*

*Where any restrictions apply to all citizens

 

[Waddy]

A true democracy has free and fair elections
Those elections are by secret ballot
Any citizen is eligible to stand for election*
Every citizen is eligible to vote*

*Where any restrictions apply to all citizens

Anything in there about oppressing segments of your own society? Anything in there about due process? Your definition seems woefully incomplete.

 

[Rich2018]

Anything in there about oppressing segments of your own society? Anything in there about due process? Your definition seems woefully incomplete.

No

Because a true democracy doesn't allow such oppression and will insist on the rule of law.

 

[Waddy]

No

Because a true democracy doesn't allow such oppression and will insist on the rule of law.

Your post makes my point. Rule of law; another feature of "true" democracy you left out of your definition. Such considerations, and possibly others, should be included in your definition or it is incomplete.