America's New Religion: Fox Evangelicalism

[cow451]

So you have no argument, mmkay.

Your argument is that not everyone signing the Constitution was proslavery. Ok. I’m sure that moral victory was great comfort to the slaves.

 

[Rion]

Your argument is that not everyone signing the Constitution was proslavery. Ok. I’m sure that moral victory was great comfort to the slaves.

This argument began when you decided to jump into a conversation to, apparently, compare slavery to gun ownership, which are not even treated anywhere near the same in the constitution. I get it, you hate the founders. That's great. I don't hate them, nor do I consider them saints or holy men. I see them as flawed beings who mostly did the best they could with what they had, and don't hold them up to impossible standards that I, myself, cannot keep. This is also why I never celebrate when people die, or smugly claim that "God struck them dead."

 

[cow451]

This argument began when you decided to jump into a conversation to, apparently, compare slavery to gun ownership, which are not even treated anywhere near the same in the constitution. I get it, you hate the founders. That's great. I don't hate them, nor do I consider them saints or holy men. I see them as flawed beings who mostly did the best they could with what they had, and don't hold them up to impossible standards that I, myself, cannot keep. This is also why I never celebrate when people die, or smugly claim that "God struck them dead."

Sorry but I don’t and never have compared slavery to gun ownership.

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

The Constitution was adopted and slavery was legal. Gymnastics don’t change that.

Well, with such a cursory understanding of the matter, we can dismiss your uninformed opinion with as much effort as you put into typing it.

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

You must be unfamiliar with the Thirteenth amendment, necessary to abolish slavery. Were it not legal under the Constitution, there wouldn’t be a need for the amendment.

Where is it expressly written into the Constitution?

 

[Rion]

Sorry but I don’t and never have compared slavery to gun ownership.

Uh-huh. I'll just put you down as being interested in Mr. Harshaw's um... project for a new constitution that wasn't made by white men and not written in English. I believe it's called Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong in this new language.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where is it expressly written into the Constitution?

Article I section 9

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

Article I section 9

Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

 

[cow451]

Uh-huh. I'll just put you down as being interested in Mr. Harshaw's um... project for a new constitution that wasn't made by white men and not written in English. I believe it's called Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong in this new language.

You know, Rion, you have a really annoying habit if paying too much attention and keeping track of stuff. I hope you make a New Years resolution to cease and desist.

That said slavery was upheld by US courts, including SCOTUS, until the Emancipation Proclamation. Therefore it was constitutional as that’s what the courts ruled in interpreting the Constitution.

I really don’t see slavery and gun rights really being connected law-wise.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

What the heck are you posting?! It's garbled, incomplete, and therefore irrelevant.

 

[USincognito]

Where is it expressly written into the Constitution?

Art. 1., Sec. 2, Clause 3.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.​

Art. 1, Sec. 9, Clause 1.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.​

Art. IV, Sec. 2, Clause 3.

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.​