So who is still mad about the civil war?

[Syriusly]

What Robert E. Lee can teach us about Confederate memorials (Opinion) - CNN.com

After reading this article I figure that the left is still mad about it. I don't know of anyone who really pissed off about it other than 'liberals' in this country because whenever someone wants to show the confederate flag then the left gets upset. No one ever really cared if some guy had a memorial to a dead confederate soldier. According to this article General Lee thought all memorials should be torn down so as to not upset people. Do you know who is getting upset? It is the left because if there is some memorial out there dedicated to a dead confederate soldier then some 'liberal' somewhere wants to take it down. No one else FUCKING CARED in the entire world! It makes me wonder who is still pissed off about the civil war in this country.

There are thread after thread here at USMB by conservatives who yearn for the days of the Confederacy and are still passionately angry that the 'Yankees' did not let the Southern Slave states secede.

As usual- you are an idiot.

 

[Boss]

So you're saying not to call the actual people racist for slavery, but the very Constitution itself as the racist party, or document, in this case. Is that correct?

Marc, to me... "racist" means a person who believes one race is superior or inferior to another. I would venture to say, from 1776-1860, about 96% of America was racist. The Dred Scott case which ruled slaves were legitimately owned property was certainly racist. Our SCOTUS has a glorious history of upholding racism and discrimination and making it constitutional.

The people who owned and used slaves were obeying the laws and the constitution. I'm sorry that was the case but I can't blame them for that. Like I said before, if you wanted to go into business growing cotton, tobacco or sugar cane, you needed a fair number of slave laborers... that's just how it was done back then.

 

[Contumacious]

So you're saying not to call the actual people racist for slavery, but the very Constitution itself as the racist party, or document, in this case. Is that correct?

Marc, to me... "racist" means a person who believes one race is superior or inferior to another. I would venture to say, from 1776-1860, about 96% of America was racist. The Dred Scott case which ruled slaves were legitimately owned property was certainly racist. Our SCOTUS has a glorious history of upholding racism and discrimination and making it constitutional.

The people who owned and used slaves were obeying the laws and the constitution. I'm sorry that was the case but I can't blame them for that. Like I said before, if you wanted to go into business growing cotton, tobacco or sugar cane, you needed a fair number of slave laborers... that's just how it was done back then.

HUH

WTF


Obeying WHICH Constitutional (1787) Laws?


.

 

[Boss]

So you're saying not to call the actual people racist for slavery, but the very Constitution itself as the racist party, or document, in this case. Is that correct?

Marc, to me... "racist" means a person who believes one race is superior or inferior to another. I would venture to say, from 1776-1860, about 96% of America was racist. The Dred Scott case which ruled slaves were legitimately owned property was certainly racist. Our SCOTUS has a glorious history of upholding racism and discrimination and making it constitutional.

The people who owned and used slaves were obeying the laws and the constitution. I'm sorry that was the case but I can't blame them for that. Like I said before, if you wanted to go into business growing cotton, tobacco or sugar cane, you needed a fair number of slave laborers... that's just how it was done back then.

HUH

WTF


Obeying WHICH Constitutional (1787) Laws?


.

What law were they breaking?

 

[kaz]

The Constitution didn't actually say they had a right to own slaves It just as you said ended the slave trade and they didn't put in the language to end it to kick the slavery can down the road so they could get the South to agree to it. You're asking for precision from others, you should give it as well, Boss. We pretty much agree on the fundamental points you're making

Well we both know that the constitution "says" what the SCOTUS justices decide it says. They had decided it said slaves were property and could be owned. Don't ask me why... Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree, but it's still not actually there

LOTS of things aren't actually there.

Agreed. Roe v. Wade isn't there, New London isn't there, Obamacare isn't there, Social Security and Medicare aren't there, restricting gun ownership for citizens who have not had their rights restricted through due process of law isn't there, regulating companies doing intrastate trade isn't there, regulating speech in political campaigns (so called finance reform) isn't there, redistribution of wealth isn't there, just to name a few. There are in fact many, many things the Federal government does that isn't there. Which the 10th amendment addresses, but the courts think that isn't there ...

 

[defcon4]

So you're saying not to call the actual people racist for slavery, but the very Constitution itself as the racist party, or document, in this case. Is that correct?

Marc, to me... "racist" means a person who believes one race is superior or inferior to another. I would venture to say, from 1776-1860, about 96% of America was racist. The Dred Scott case which ruled slaves were legitimately owned property was certainly racist. Our SCOTUS has a glorious history of upholding racism and discrimination and making it constitutional.

The people who owned and used slaves were obeying the laws and the constitution. I'm sorry that was the case but I can't blame them for that. Like I said before, if you wanted to go into business growing cotton, tobacco or sugar cane, you needed a fair number of slave laborers... that's just how it was done back then.

HUH

WTF


Obeying WHICH Constitutional (1787) Laws?


.

Similar ones to nowadays' same sex marriage law.

 

[Boss]

The Constitution didn't actually say they had a right to own slaves It just as you said ended the slave trade and they didn't put in the language to end it to kick the slavery can down the road so they could get the South to agree to it. You're asking for precision from others, you should give it as well, Boss. We pretty much agree on the fundamental points you're making

Well we both know that the constitution "says" what the SCOTUS justices decide it says. They had decided it said slaves were property and could be owned. Don't ask me why... Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree, but it's still not actually there

LOTS of things aren't actually there.

Agreed. Roe v. Wade isn't there, New London isn't there, Obamacare isn't there, Social Security and Medicare aren't there, restricting gun ownership for citizens who have not had their rights restricted through due process of law isn't there, regulating companies doing intrastate trade isn't there, regulating speech in political campaigns (so called finance reform) isn't there, redistribution of wealth isn't there, just to name a few. There are in fact many, many things the Federal government does that isn't there. Which the 10th amendment addresses, but the courts think that isn't there ...

Still... what is considered "constitutional" is what the current court says is constitutional. It's been like that since Marbury v. Madison. We can't go back and retroactively apply modern interpretations of constitutionality to people of the past, they didn't have that "enlightenment" and could only go by what the current laws said. They didn't have crystal balls to look into the future and say... Oh my god, this is totally unconstitutional, what we're doing! People lived by the findings of the court at that time.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution didn't actually say they had a right to own slaves It just as you said ended the slave trade and they didn't put in the language to end it to kick the slavery can down the road so they could get the South to agree to it. You're asking for precision from others, you should give it as well, Boss. We pretty much agree on the fundamental points you're making

Well we both know that the constitution "says" what the SCOTUS justices decide it says. They had decided it said slaves were property and could be owned. Don't ask me why... Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree, but it's still not actually there

LOTS of things aren't actually there.

Agreed. Roe v. Wade isn't there, New London isn't there, Obamacare isn't there, Social Security and Medicare aren't there, restricting gun ownership for citizens who have not had their rights restricted through due process of law isn't there, regulating companies doing intrastate trade isn't there, regulating speech in political campaigns (so called finance reform) isn't there, redistribution of wealth isn't there, just to name a few. There are in fact many, many things the Federal government does that isn't there. Which the 10th amendment addresses, but the courts think that isn't there ...

Still... what is considered "constitutional" is what the current court says is constitutional. It's been like that since Marbury v. Madison. We can't go back and retroactively apply modern interpretations of constitutionality to people of the past, they didn't have that "enlightenment" and could only go by what the current laws said. They didn't have crystal balls to look into the future and say... Oh my god, this is totally unconstitutional, what we're doing! People lived by the findings of the court at that time.

Actually, the founding fathers thought of that. Their prescription to make the Constitution "modern" was 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4, not 5/9

 

[Contumacious]

So you're saying not to call the actual people racist for slavery, but the very Constitution itself as the racist party, or document, in this case. Is that correct?

Marc, to me... "racist" means a person who believes one race is superior or inferior to another. I would venture to say, from 1776-1860, about 96% of America was racist. The Dred Scott case which ruled slaves were legitimately owned property was certainly racist. Our SCOTUS has a glorious history of upholding racism and discrimination and making it constitutional.

The people who owned and used slaves were obeying the laws and the constitution. I'm sorry that was the case but I can't blame them for that. Like I said before, if you wanted to go into business growing cotton, tobacco or sugar cane, you needed a fair number of slave laborers... that's just how it was done back then.

HUH

WTF


Obeying WHICH Constitutional (1787) Laws?


.

What law were they breaking?

5th Amendment due process clause

Afro-Americans were citizens of these US of A.

 

[Boss]

Actually, the founding fathers thought of that. Their prescription to make the Constitution "modern" was 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4, not 5/9

I have no idea what that even means.

 

[Boss]

5th Amendment due process clause

Afro-Americans were citizens of these US of A.

Uhm... NO... they weren't.

 

[kaz]

Actually, the founding fathers thought of that. Their prescription to make the Constitution "modern" was 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4, not 5/9

I have no idea what that even means.

Seriously?

You change the Constitution with 2/3 the house and 2/3 the senate passing a Constitutional Amendment, then 3/4 the legislatures need to pass it.

They did not say times change, so five of nine Supreme Court justices will inform us when it happens

 

[Flash]

I am.

My great, great great grandfather fought in the 9th Florida Regiment to stop the filthy ass Union thugs from invading our state and later on to stop the shithead union army at Cold Harbor.

The South was right in that war and it is a tragedy that the northern libtard assholes were able to win.

We are still paying for it today with this out of control deb ridden oppressive filthy Federal government.

 

[Boss]

Actually, the founding fathers thought of that. Their prescription to make the Constitution "modern" was 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4, not 5/9

I have no idea what that even means.

Seriously?

You change the Constitution with 2/3 the house and 2/3 the senate passing a Constitutional Amendment, then 3/4 the legislatures need to pass it.

They did not say times change, so five of nine Supreme Court justices will inform us when it happens

Okay, I now know what you meant... it wasn't clear in your previous post.

I agree with what you're saying but that's not what we've been doing since Marbury v. Madison. You know, unfortunately, we don't have the option as citizens to ignore SCOTUS rulings. How things SHOULD be and how things ARE is two completely different things.

 

[Contumacious]

5th Amendment due process clause

Afro-Americans were citizens of these US of A.

Uhm... NO... they weren't.

Of course they were.

Afro-Americans were US citizen. RACIST Supreme Court Justice Roger B Taney was so embarrased that he resigned from] SCOTUS. Read
Justice Curtis dissenting opinion

The Republicans were looking for a discreet position to ignore the SCOTUS decision.

 

[Boss]

5th Amendment due process clause

Afro-Americans were citizens of these US of A.

Uhm... NO... they weren't.

Of course they were.

Afro-Americans were US citizen. RACIST Supreme Court Justice Roger B Taney was so embarrased that he resigned from] SCOTUS. Read
Justice Curtis dissenting opinion

The Republicans were looking for a discreet position to ignore the SCOTUS decision.

I don't know what you were supposed to be linking to, your link goes to this thread!

"Afro-Americans" as you call them, weren't US citizens until the 14th Amendment MADE them such.

Prior to that, you had this...
Dred Scott v. Sanford.

The Court held that neither Scott nor any other person of African descent—whether or not emancipated from slavery—could be "citizen of a state", and therefore was unable to bring suit in federal court on the ground of diversity. Taney spent pages 407-421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states. His goal was to ascertain whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, federal law could have recognized Scott (a Negro descendant of a slave) as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III. Relying upon statements made by Charles Pinckney, who had claimed authorship of the Privileges and Immunities Clause during the debates over the Missouri Compromise,[26] Taney decided: "the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained." According to Taney, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

 

[kaz]

Actually, the founding fathers thought of that. Their prescription to make the Constitution "modern" was 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4, not 5/9

I have no idea what that even means.

Seriously?

You change the Constitution with 2/3 the house and 2/3 the senate passing a Constitutional Amendment, then 3/4 the legislatures need to pass it.

They did not say times change, so five of nine Supreme Court justices will inform us when it happens

Okay, I now know what you meant... it wasn't clear in your previous post.

I agree with what you're saying but that's not what we've been doing since Marbury v. Madison. You know, unfortunately, we don't have the option as citizens to ignore SCOTUS rulings. How things SHOULD be and how things ARE is two completely different things.

Marbury v. Madison was supposed to mean congress can't pass a law that violates the Constitution. It was not supposed to mean the supreme court can say "times have changed" and change the Constitution

 

[Contumacious]

5th Amendment due process clause

Afro-Americans were citizens of these US of A.

Uhm... NO... they weren't.

Of course they were.

Afro-Americans were US citizen. RACIST Supreme Court Justice Roger B Taney was so embarrased that he resigned from] SCOTUS. Read
Justice Curtis dissenting opinion

The Republicans were looking for a discreet position to ignore the SCOTUS decision.

I don't know what you were supposed to be linking to, your link goes to this thread!

"Afro-Americans" as you call them, weren't US citizens until the 14th Amendment MADE them such.

Prior to that, you had this...
Dred Scott v. Sanford.

The Court held that neither Scott nor any other person of African descent—whether or not emancipated from slavery—could be "citizen of a state", and therefore was unable to bring suit in federal court on the ground of diversity. Taney spent pages 407-421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states. His goal was to ascertain whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, federal law could have recognized Scott (a Negro descendant of a slave) as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III. Relying upon statements made by Charles Pinckney, who had claimed authorship of the Privileges and Immunities Clause during the debates over the Missouri Compromise,[26] Taney decided: "the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained." According to Taney, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Oooops, try again.

BULLSHIT

 

[Boss]

RACIST Supreme Court Justice Roger B Taney was so embarrased that he resigned from] SCOTUS.

Justice Taney died on the court at age 97.

 

[Boss]

Oooops, try again.

BULLSHIT

Tried again, it still links to this thread.