Liberals Contempt for U.S. Constitution

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Okay here it goes..

 

I could understand where someone Liberal or conservative could think reading our founding document of law. I mean after all, those congress people take an oath to uphold it. And it takes a majority of states to ratify a change in it.

I could even understand a few thinking it would take time away from the pressing needs of congress to do something about the Jobs and economy thing you know. I mean after all the Dems were right on that spending nearly two years on a jobs killing bill many in their own caucus did not want.

But the Blogger for the New York times going as far as to declare the reading of the constitution a racist act because at one point there was a clause declaring a slave to be 3/5th a person has to show just how little history is still taught anywhere.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/05/nyt-implies-h...

 

To those who were actually still taught what certain clauses were designed to do, the 3/5th person clause was to keep the south from forcing slaves to vote against there own interests as the south had more slaves that free men at one point in time.

So making a libelous statement of the 3/5th clause has to show they guy writing this rag had no idea of what that clause was designed to eventually do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

I say the fact some in congress have so much contempt for the rule of law. ( Change the constitution if you don't like it don't just ignore it). Those folks should go to a country that also believes the same as they do. Oh that's right.. most of those countries are also figuring out liberal policies are akin to children believing in the unseen mythical things like perfect worlds and everyone will do the right thing if only you give them the chance. Oh and Kool-Aid and unicorns for all mankind!!! AAARRGGG!!!

[Dave]

Some people in congress think the reading was dumb.. like this guy:

 

Democrat Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), reading the Constitution is Republican "propaganda" that is "total nonsense."

[J.B]

Dave what did you think would happen from the left.   Common Sence, or just bigger goverment and larger Taxes.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Welcome to the conversation JB I was wondering if anyone may at least say hi over here.

[Edie Lindsey]

In your wiki article Guido the true character of the 3/5 Compromise is discussed: 

"The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had obtained under the Articles of Confederation. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did, because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did."

 

In the original Articles, the main reason Southerners wanted slaves to be counted as less than a man is that their taxes would be less, but Northerners wanted them to be counted.  This thinking reversed when the main point was congressional representation.  People looking to avoid taxes and out for their best interests.  This was the 'logical' thinking behind the compromise.

It should be noted that black men did not get the vote until after the Civil War, and all women waited a bit longer.  Just as for the presidency.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Good points Edie.. Now just another little tweak for the Liberals being the party of civil rights crowd. The first slave holder in the Colony's was a Black Ex slave. I wonder how many people realise that fact? 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html

 

Slavery anywhere in the world it was or is still practiced isn't about race... It was always about cheap labor or domination. Before we had servants for life ( slaves) here we had indentured servants. Those who could buy their way out of servitude at some point in time.

Isn't allowing an undocumented alien to remain here in the shadows just another version of slavery?? Shouldn't then the Left also agree we need to place them back in their native country to avoid abuse?? OOOOhhHHH I seee... not if your the party who wants them to vote for your agenda ultimately ehh??

[Max]

In order to understand the Constitution, I would not recommend using Wikipeadia or other sources such as that.  To really understand the Constitution and certain aspects such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, you should read The Federalist and the Convention debates.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I have Max.. I just use Wiki as a fast place to grab general information even if one wants to complain about Wikis methods for gather data in most posts you can then go to the Bibliography at the bottom to get the major links to things such as your posts suggest as better.

[Max]

I didn't point that comment at you Guido.  It is for those who totally rely on sources like Wiki.  I know you are not one of them.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Yeah TY max I do see where you could get the wrong flavor of the day if you used WiKi as your only source for many issues.

 

Your pointing to the Federalist papers for Constitutional Meaning and basis really presents a view one would not see in any other historical reference .

[AQUAMAN]

Dave, when guys like Nadler and others that may be snoozing or making negative comments about the Constitution are present, I would recommend the paige boys have buckets of ice cold water to dump over their heads to Wake Them UP!

[Max]

Great idea Aqua!

[XLFD]

I believe Guido was following Dave's Principle:  when presenting a conservative thesis, using liberal sources for your point gains it a bit more universal credibility than using only conservative-leaning sources (as it does in the reversal of those two poles).   

Max's resources, written and unedited, at the time this document was crafted are as he says, the best way to really understand what happened, without resorting to reading the opinions and biases of unknown authors over two hundred years afterwards.  Even if they agree with your own opinions and biases.