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

[dixon01767]

Wasn't slavery racial discrimination ?

The Constitution only prohibited the slavery, not the discrimination

 

[Rich2018]

The Constitution only prohibited the slavery, not the discrimination

You use the past tense, so where in the Constitution, was slavery prohibited ?

In it's current form:

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

 

[bomberfox]

Hell the constitution is incapable of reigning in the powerful.

 

[dixon01767]

You use the past tense, so where in the Constitution, was slavery prohibited ?

13th -Neither 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.

 

[Rich2018]

13th -Neither 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.

That's an amendment. It wasn't part of the original Constitution - did you miss the bit about me saying you were using the PAST tense ?

 

[dixon01767]

That's an amendment. It wasn't part of the original Constitution - did you miss the bit about me saying you were using the PAST tense ?

It is now a part of the constitution AND was added in the past. Cant imagine what you are going on about now.

 

[AFrench2]

Since when ?

Since the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment were written.

Again, the problem is racism.

 

[Rich2018]

It is now a part of the constitution AND was added in the past. Cant imagine what you are going on about now.

I said:

"You use the past tense, so where in the Constitution, was slavery prohibited ?

In it's current form:

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Please note the use of the word: "current".

 

[Rich2018]

Since the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment were written.

Again, the problem is racism.

And where in those amendments does it say that all men are created equal ?

 

[AFrench2]

And where in those amendments does it say that all men are created equal ?

?

All US Citizens are afforded the same protection under the 14th Amendment (citizenship for all born in the US). The Bill of Rights also extends to all US Citizens.

The problem is racism, for the 3rd time.

 

[Rich2018]

?

All US Citizens are afforded the same protection under the 14th Amendment (citizenship for all born in the US). The Bill of Rights also extends to all US Citizens.

The problem is racism, for the 3rd time.

So what ?

Does the 14th amendment make them equal ?
Not on your life

And Americans are not even equal before the law either:
Under the adversarial system of criminal justice, a rich man will have a team of expensive lawyers dedicated to his case...the poor man has an over worked public defender

Some equality !

 

[Somerville]

What would a modern Constitution look like? Damned if I know but a Constitutional Convention would certainly bring out the nutters.

A 'few' years ago, some random fellow by the name of Tom Jefferson wrote a letter to a friend, Jim Madison, in which TJ noted that as society changes, old laws and constitutions should be changed to comply with said societal changes.

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who[27] gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

The first time I read this letter, I wondered why TJ chose 19 years instead of 20 as the period of change - if others wish to learn why he chose 19, read the letter is all I can say. The letter is not an easy read, yet another indication as to why "originalists" often have a problem using 18th century language to justify 21st century acts. Our understanding of words and phrases has changed over the years.

 

[Rich2018]

What would a modern Constitution look like? Damned if I know but a Constitutional Convention would certainly bring out the nutters.

A 'few' years ago, some random fellow by the name of Tom Jefferson wrote a letter to a friend, Jim Madison, in which TJ noted that as society changes, old laws and constitutions should be changed to comply with said societal changes.

The first time I read this letter, I wondered why TJ chose 19 years instead of 20 as the period of change - if others wish to learn why he chose 19, read the letter is all I can say. The letter is not an easy read, yet another indication as to why "originalists" often have a problem using 18th century language to justify 21st century acts. Our understanding of words and phrases has changed over the years.

So did TJ express any ideas on racism ?

 

[dixon01767]

I said:

"You use the past tense, so where in the Constitution, was slavery prohibited ?

In it's current form:

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Please note the use of the word: "current".

No, the 13th Amendment still prohibits slavery in the "current" time. Cant imagine what you are going on about now.

 

[Rich2018]

No, the 13th Amendment still prohibits slavery in the "current" time. Cant imagine what you are going on about now.

Then you need to sharpen your reading comprehension skills:

In it's original form, the Constitution allowed slavery

It is its current form that it does not.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The Constitution does not demonstrate any racism as there is no enshrinement of one race being superior over another. That doesn't preclude that there are racists and bigots, but it should be their actions that damn them, not their thoughts.

 

[Rich2018]

The Constitution does not demonstrate any racism as there is no enshrinement of one race being superior over another. That doesn't preclude that there are racists and bigots, but it should be their actions that damn them, not their thoughts.

So how do explain the Constitution condoning slavery ?

 

[dixon01767]

Then you need to sharpen your reading comprehension skills:

In it's original form, the Constitution allowed slavery

It is its current form that it does not.

I never said anything about the Constitution in its original form. Youre still trapped within a debate that occurs nowhere other than within your own mind.

 

[dixon01767]

So how do explain the Constitution condoning slavery ?

A necessary compromise to get the southern states on board. But it included the beginning of its end. "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," which was the year congress banned the importation of slaves.

 

[Rich2018]

I never said anything about the Constitution in its original form.

Yes you did, when you used the past tense rather than the present tense

Youre still trapped within a debate that occurs nowhere other than within your own mind.

You wouldn't know as you seemingly don't understand grammar rules

A necessary compromise to get the southern states on board. But it included the beginning of its end. "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight," which was the year congress banned the importation of slaves.

So the principles of the Declaration of Independence, was compromised on the right "liberty" bit ?

Yet the Constitution also contained the fugitive slave clause which read:

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3

Explain that one. Most revealing in this respect was a last-minute change in the fugitive-clause whereby the phrase "legally held to service or labor in one state" was changed to read "held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof." The revision made it impossible to infer from the passage that the Constitution legally sanctioned slavery.

 

[dixon01767]

Yes you did, when you used the past tense rather than the present tense

Because the 13th amendment was added in the past einstein.

No the constitution was amended .........

You wouldn't know as you seemingly don't understand grammar rules

So the principles of the Declaration of Independence, was compromised on the right "liberty" bit ?

Yet the Constitution also contained the fugitive slave clause which read:

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3

Explain that one. Most revealing in this respect was a last-minute change in the fugitive-clause whereby the phrase "legally held to service or labor in one state" was changed to read "held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof." The revision made it impossible to infer from the passage that the Constitution legally sanctioned slavery.

All irrelevant to my point

THE POINT, youve been trying to avoid is that the constitution only prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of race and says nothing of discrimination by individuals.

 

[dixon01767]

"All men are created equal" is not ambiguous. The Constitution deals with it perfectly fine.

Thats not from the Constitution.

 

[Rich2018]

Because the 13th amendment was added in the past einstein.

The 13th Amendment is still in the CURRENT form

As opposed to the 18th Amendment, which is not - are you really this stupid ?

All irrelevant to my point

If you actually had one - which you don't


So go brush up on your grammar, and perhaps return to the discussion once you can read and understand English.

 

[dixon01767]

The 13th Amendment is still in the CURRENT form

As opposed to the 18th Amendment, which is not - are you really this stupid ?

My statement about the constitution in the past tense,
" No the constitution was amended ......... "

Doesnt contradict the fact that the constitution in its current form also contains the same amendment. You should probably stop making calls about other peoples grammar. You arent qualified and only end up looking the fool.

 

[Rich2018]

My statement about the constitution in the past tense,
" No the constitution was amended ......... "

Doesnt contradict the fact that the constitution in its current form also contains the same amendment. You should probably stop making calls about other peoples grammar. You arent qualified and only end up looking the fool.

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.