To: Lonesome in Massachussets
In 1857, the SCOTUS ruled, "You don't." A ruling that lead directly to the election of Lincoln and the Civil War. Wouldn't a constitutional amendment have been easier?
23 posted on
07/01/2016 7:32:51 AM PDT by
DiogenesLamp
("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
To: DiogenesLamp
It’s like many entanglements in vice. There is such a warpage of conscience and defensiveness of evil, that it can not come undone overnight.
The original constitution shouldn’t have allowed slavery. That was a very poisonous pill for the new America. You can’t be trumpeting independence before God while denying some of His creatures the independence that He wants them to have. Not without inviting retribution.
26 posted on
07/01/2016 7:40:05 AM PDT by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: DiogenesLamp
See Corwin Amendment.
27 posted on
07/01/2016 8:10:48 AM PDT by
PeaRidge
To: DiogenesLamp
I am not a big fan of the Civil War, a needless, horrible castrophe, but a constitutional amendment requires 3/4’s of the states and 2/3 of the Senate to approve it. The South cheered the Dred Scott decision, not realizing that the chain of events it unleashed.
30 posted on
07/01/2016 8:38:20 AM PDT by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(I'm not a smug know-it-all; I just want you to experience epistemological closure.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson