Posted on 10/20/2016 1:38:27 PM PDT by Trump20162020
5) They still can’t.
Their claim that they’re “married” doesn’t make them married any more than my claim that I’m the King of England makes me the King of England.
The writer, Julia Craven, is amazingly well named.
Word to the Huffington Post:
Among the things the Founders intended is that the Constitution be subject to Amendment.
We passed the 13th Amendment (ending slavery and the counting of slaves as 6/10 persons). The doctrine of original intent as applied to amendments is that amendments are to be interpreted by those who drafted and ratified the amendment.
In terms of “only white people being considered people,” the Democrats did argue that only White European Protestants could be citizens. That was always controversial. Abraham Lincoln said the Dred Scott decision was wrong, and that Republicans would work to overturn it (his Cooper Union speech). He intended to accomplish this peacefully, through the gradual replacement of Democrats on the Supreme Court by Republicans. Then came the Civil War, and after it the 14th Amendment saying that anybody born here was a U.S. citizen. (This created a new controversy - for some people - as to whether being born here was the only way a person could be “a natural born citizen.”)
Only property owners could vote - all but Rhode Island (I think) tied the right to vote to being a property owner (and paying taxes). This was called “Jeffersonian Democracy.” That the country would feature citizens who paid the taxes, served on juries, were members of the militia, and voted. The bore the costs of citizenship, and so earned the rights of citizens to vote. That was changed, essentially, by the 15th Amendment. I prefer the original arrangement, but being a judicial conservative, I think we would need a new amendment to restore the connection from bearing the cost of citizenship to earning the right to vote.
LBGT couples can’t marry. They still can’t. The word “marry” has a particular meaning involving a male part and a female part. When Isaac took Rebekah into a tent and they married (Gen. 24:67), this doesn’t mean that there was a justice of the peace in that tent.
To comment on women: At the Founding, fathers and husbands were financially responsible for children and wives. This was in law, not merely custom. So, women were not fully citizens in the Jeffersonian sense. Some women, who were emancipated (perhaps by being widows), and who were property owners and tax-payers, made the argument that they should have the right to vote. This actually made some sense, and it is thought that at least in New Jersey some women voted during the Early Republic. But, the truth is we have been going through a long period of social and legal evolution on what equality means for women, and we still don’t really know what this means.
These fascists/statists have no idea what “rule of law” is.
for leftists of all stripes, politics must be involved in everything.
Nicely done.
Trump did miss an opportunity when asked about how his nominees would “interpret the constitution”. He should have said “The constitution is written in English, it doesn’t need to be interpreted. It needs to be applied to the law, and I will appoint judges who will apply the constitution as written, not make up new “rights” to fit their political agenda”.
Quite a bit was going on in the world when Shakespeare that Julia Craven of the Huffington Post might not agree with or like.
Would she then conclude that William Shakespeare was not therefore the world’s greatest writer?
The author is an idiot, because the Constitution was set up to provide a way to change the compact to reflect changing interests, and that was the AMENDMENT process! Liberals, however, are incensed that the have to go through that process.
Guessing Ms Craven does not realize that the people who wanted to keep slaves wanted them counted as a full person and those that wanted to free them did not want to count them at all....because the issue was whether to count them in the census toward giving slavery states more power to protect slavery.
Also, the 3/5th compromise was not overturned by judicial activism, but by the 14th Amendment.
Leftists are such arrogant dopes. Its embarrassing that this person is actually paid to be a journalist.
Leftists/Statists were never “cool” with the Constitution.
After all, the Founders would have NEVER wanted us to obligate ourselves to Constitutional amendments as well. /sarc
Yeah, HuffnPuffPost is not the brightest place to go to get Constitutional analysis.
Everything bad is Racism for the Left -- except when the Democrats use Racism. They call everything their opponents do as racist.
The Constitution was written to end slavery, bit by bit.
As for the faggots... I can’t shrug loud enough
These ridiculous, ignorant people have never heard of the Amendments to the Constitution.
Note: all those links go to (SURPRISE!) other Huff Post articles.
1. Slavery was legal. Black people were enslaved.
2. Enslaved Africans were considered to be three-fifths of a person.
3. Only white people were considered to be people.
4. Only white men who owned property could vote.
5. LGBT couples couldn’t get married.
NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS WAS EVEN ADDRESSED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
1 - Slavery is not in the Con. It is mentioned incidentally due to (2), but nowhere is any mention of race, either. Only “Indians” are mentioned.
2 - Total misconstruction of the meaning. IOW, it was beloved Yankee NORTHERNERS who counted them as “3-5ths”. However, the point was to NOT allow slave-heavy states full representation via their slaves, which SH states wanted to boost their numbers in Congress.
3 - Again, irrelevant. Nothing in the Con about it and thinking everyone actually thought that way doesn’t preclude the OPPOSITE happening.
4 - BS. STATES CHOSE who could vote. Nothing in the Con about who can vote. NJ allowed women, and others allowed other races to vote. Some had property tests, others don’t. “Property”, BTW, often means a single coin!
5 - what? Just what? Irrelevant. Not in the Con. Nothing about marriage in the Con.
“That’s not cool. Here’s what was going on when the Constitution was written in 1787.”
BTW: TRANSLATION:
WE HATE THE $!@#ING FOUNDERS! EEEEVVIILL, THEY WERE! SO WE HATE THE CONSTITUTION! AND THE COUNTRY STAMPED BY IT!!!
That’s what it boils down to.
Once again, “liberals” (communists) showing how much they hate their own country.
GET THE HELL OUT!
Agree with you... I do!
Trump isn't. He'll gut them like fish, and they damn well know it. Why else do you think they fear him so?
Step one -- they lay out some outrageous point
Step two ---I engage them in a discussion which is a good faith effort to discuss the issue
Step 3 - They call me names
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.