Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[Ben Kenobi]

it wasn't simply a matter of whether the proposed state would comply with the Constitution.

In both cases, yes, state compliance to the federal government was a necessity. I'm really not getting your point here. Gribbler, the whole issue with the Compromise is that it was sanctioning slavery in certain portions of the United States, which until then hadn't been done before. The eventual consequence was the civil war.

[giblets]

The Missouri Compromise happened because Missouri was having trouble getting admitted as a state, because the north didn't want another slave state and was blocking their admission. Was slavery unconstitutional back then? No... I can't believe I had to spell that out for you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Was slavery unconstitutional back then? No... I can't believe I had to spell that out for you.

Did the constitution sanction slavery? No. I can't believe I had to spell that out for you.

[giblets]

How the **** does the constitution need to explicitly sanction something before a state government is allowed to do it?

[Ben Kenobi]

How the **** does the constitution need to explicitly sanction something before a state government is allowed to do it?

The point being is that the founding fathers hoped not to have to explicitly spell things out in the constitution, they believed it would wither away over time.

The Compromise was the first time that slavery had been enshrined in Law. You can read what Lincoln had to say about the 'compromise', he was pretty outspoken.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The point being that constitutionally the US runs on top of English common law. Common law definition of marriage is one man and one woman. That's what the mormons ran into 150 years ago, and what the sharia folks and the gay folks are running into now.

If you want to change this, fine. But there are some pretty serious and wide ranging consequences.

The common law is meant to change (albeit gradually). It has for hundreds of years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

they believed it would wither away over time.

They weren't Communists.

[giblets]

The point being is that the founding fathers hoped not to have to explicitly spell things out in the constitution, they believed it would wither away over time.

The Compromise was the first time that slavery had been enshrined in Law. You can read what Lincoln had to say about the 'compromise', he was pretty outspoken.

The fact that a ban on slavery wasn't part of the constitution at the time is somehow irrelevant because you consider the founding fathers to be some sort of monolithic entity who all wanted slavery to die?

[Ben Kenobi]

The common law is meant to change (albeit gradually). It has for hundreds of years.

So we should expect Habeas Corpus to fade too? Pitiful response Imran.

[Ben Kenobi]

The fact that a ban on slavery wasn't part of the constitution at the time is somehow irrelevant because you consider the founding fathers to be some sort of monolithic entity who all wanted slavery to die?

Uh, the fact that they were quoted saying just that I find evidence to support the position that they did not want slavery retained.

But go on, tell me what Lincoln who was there and experienced all of it first hand who lived in a western state, how he felt about the 'Compromise'.

[giblets]

So we should expect Habeas Corpus to fade too? Pitiful response Imran.

The constitution explicitly says habeas corpus isn't going anywhere. Come on, that was pitiful.

[giblets]

Uh, the fact that they were quoted saying just that I find evidence to support the position that they did not want slavery retained.

But go on, tell me what Lincoln who was there and experienced all of it first hand who lived in a western state, how he felt about the 'Compromise'.

If they all wanted to abolish slavery, why didn't they do it?

As for Lincoln... how is that even relevant? How does that somehow prove slavery was unconstitutional at the time?

[Ben Kenobi]

The constitution explicitly says habeas corpus isn't going anywhere.

Not according to Imran. The common law is supposed to change every hundred years or so. Why not do away with Habeaus Corpus?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So we should expect Habeas Corpus to fade too? Pitiful response Imran.

habeas corpus is statutory in the US, Ben. Not common law. Thanks for playing though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not according to Imran. The common law is supposed to change every hundred years or so. Why not do away with Habeaus Corpus?

You are an idiot.