A Sane and Moral Choice for Prez

[MichaeltheGreat]

Liberals whining about gerrymanders is the funniest thing ever.

I'm not a liberal so you can suck my nuts, and for a foreign ***** who whines everything is unconstitutional unless it is explicitly written in the Constitution, cite where the word "gerrymander" occurs. Or better yet, go back to stunting the intellectual development of some school kids.

[MichaeltheGreat]

the constitution is colorblind and does not define black people as 3/5ths human or non-human and even slaves were called "persons", the same term for everyone else regardless of race or gender

And it was well established that "person" was a member of the white race. Maybe you could explain your theories to CJ Taney. And natives didn't become legal persons until 1879, and that only applied to Standing Bear until a few years later.

[Berzerker]

If "person" refers only to white people why does the Constitution use the same term for slaves?

[Aeson]

Berz thinks it's ok to own slaves so long as you call them "persons" in a document

[Aeson]

And it's ok to deny women the right to vote given the same premise.

[Berzerker]

Berz thinks it's ok to own slaves so long as you call them "persons" in a document

I dont think its ok to say the Constitution claims black people are not human when they're not even mentioned

and it doesn't mention women either

nobody said its ok to own slaves, go play with Mikey in his pile of straw

[kentonio]

I dont think its ok to say the Constitution claims black people are not human when they're not even mentioned

No, it just includes specific protections for slavery. It's just a total coincidence that the slaves were all black.

[Elok]

I can't recall offhand whether Tom Jefferson speculated on black people being half-human, half-ape in print for the general population or just for a limited circle of readers.

[Aeson]

nobody said its ok to own slaves

The founding fathers did ...

[Elok]

It's more like they passively accepted the existence of an institution a lot of them grimaced ineffectually at because it was the only way to preserve unity. The New York Manumission Society at the time failed to pass a motion that all members should be required to free their slaves. They decided to leave that up to the conscience of the individual members. Truly, these men were moral giants.

[Aeson]

You're just saying "why" they chose to say it was ok.

[Elok]

No, no, if they'd gone ahead and said it was okay that would have implied enough courage to discuss the issue openly and take a moral stand one way or another. IIRC the Constitution fumblingly refers to "other persons" rather than "slaves" or "chattel" or "human persons generally categorized as a form of farm equipment." That is, they sort of imply it's okay, but don't have the balls to own it.

[kentonio]

To be fair to them, if they'd tried to ban it (which some wanted) then it would never have been ratified.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not a liberal so you can suck my nuts, and for a foreign ***** who whines everything is unconstitutional unless it is explicitly written in the Constitution, cite where the word "gerrymander" occurs. Or better yet, go back to stunting the intellectual development of some school kids.

The Fact is that Texas still hasn't been able to redistrict since the Republicans came to power. Why? Because it would mean undoing all the Democrat gerrymanders, some of which date to the 60s.

And then let's not bring up the Civil Rights act which restricts only the Southern States from redistricting their legislatures... 50 years after the fact.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If "person" refers only to white people why does the Constitution use the same term for slaves?

You mean "three fifths of other persons" as opposed to "free persons" solely for purposes of apportionment? Do you contend that the Framers intended to grant the right to keep and bear arms to slaves? That amendment refers to the "right of the people" generally, but has been held by SCOTUS to apply to individuals. The Fifth Amendment expressly uses the term "person" but it's rather clear that millions of slaves were deprived of liberty without due process, so semantic nitpicking aside, it's pretty clear they were not considered "persons" under the law, except for apportionment purposes.
or