nope
i don't trust strict constitutionalists.
i mean ... slavery.
just so that the same page is open - I could have owned a person. Well ... actually, i'm usually darker than most - so, more likely you could have owned me.
Because slavery was legal.
No ... they didn't have all this shit figured out back then.
So, that is why i don't trust strict constitutionalists.
17 comments:
How would you, as a not-strict-constitutionalist interpreted Article IV Section 2, then:
No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The founding fathers made it pretty clear that if you were a slave in your home state you were a slave when you escaped.
The rule is a bad one, obviously, but it how is saying "well, I'm going to read that to say that slavery is not permitted" any different than GWB saying he's going to interpret McCain's anti-torture legislation to allow him to torture?
Uh, okay, I need more caffeine.
there's lots of shit they didn't have figured out back then
that's why relying on any older documents strictly (constitution, bible, etc) is silly in my opinion
times change
and we need to be able to learn, adapt, and change also
and written documents can't do that
"well, I'm going to read that to say that slavery is not permitted"
i love mental masturbation.
here's another quote i like,
"stop hitting me with that leather, stone-beaded whip ... it hurts like all fuck and i said i'd do what you ordered."
- - -
i suppose it's like the metaphysicist driving to class ... he was contemplating the tabula rasa vs brutish state of nature when he drifted over in the bike lane and smacked an ipod-ed cyclist.
the real and the surreal.
"there's lots of shit they didn't have figured out back then
that's why relying on any older documents strictly (constitution, bible, etc) is silly in my opinion"
The difference between the constitution and the Bible is pretty significant, though! The constitution has a built in means for amendment. The Bible... not so much. Likewise, many parts of the Bible are narrative parables. The Constitution... not so much.
The beauty of the Constitution is that if "We the People" don't like it, we can press our elected representatives to change it. And we've done so 27 times so far. What if our free-spirited non-strict-constructionist justices decided to interpret the 13th amendment ("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.") to mean not just what it says?
It'd be a bummer...
the amendment process is important but like everything, somewhat flawed
but, you know, i'm in a good mood today and plan to stay that way so you all have fun arguing this one without me
yeah...I can only get about halfway through these comments before I have to stop and click on this instead
thanks vb, i needed that
i have been sooo looking forward to sprints today and i just can't sprint at all if i'm not happy
funny bunny
... as for da gov'ment ~ i'm all for it. give people some shit to do with their time, is what i say.
you can look at that,
i'm looking at this.
oh ... yumma-yum yum.
i think this post has been successfully rescued
huh? what?
there was a post here?
about what?
IHNIWGO.....
she needs a tan
Something must be wrong with me, because looking at this makes me even happier.
she'll be tan by injection soon enough.
mmm... donuts.
~
Where are the nekkid ladies?
no time for nekkidity ... gotta do lunch'ervals.
yippee-ki-yi-yay
Post a Comment