So who is still mad about the civil war?

[Boss]

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

Well what it was supposed to mean or what the founding fathers intended are not relevant here.

 

[Contumacious]

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

Justice Taney died on the court at age 97.

My bad, the dissenter
Benjamin Robbins Curtis is the one who resigned.

 

[Contumacious]

Oooops, try again.

BULLSHIT

Tried again, it still links to this thread.

Try here

 

[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.

My bad, the dissenter
Benjamin Robbins Curtis is the one who resigned.

Dissenting views in SCOTUS rulings are not what is considered Constitutional or law of the land. He felt they should have rights as citizens... we all feel that way today... but that wasn't how the court ruled in 1857. So you can run around saying they were citizens having their 5th Amendment rights violated all you like, that's not true. They weren't citizens until the 14th Amendment made them citizens and they didn't have Constitutional protections, as evidenced by the ruling in Dred Scott.

Should have. Ought to have. But they didn't.

 

[Boss]

Oooops, try again.

BULLSHIT

Tried again, it still links to this thread.

Try here

Again. you are presenting the dissenting argument in the Scott v. Sanford case. Every case has a dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion is not the law of the land. There was a dissenting opinion if Roe v. Wade...doesn't make abortions illegal. What matters is the RULING.

 

[Contumacious]

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

Justice Taney died on the court at age 97.

My bad, the dissenter
Benjamin Robbins Curtis is the one who resigned.

Dissenting views in SCOTUS rulings are not what is considered Constitutional or law of the land. He felt they should have rights as citizens... we all feel that way today... but that wasn't how the court ruled in 1857. So you can run around saying they were citizens having their 5th Amendment rights violated all you like, that's not true. They weren't citizens until the 14th Amendment made them citizens and they didn't have Constitutional protections, as evidenced by the ruling in Dred Scott.

Should have. Ought to have. But they didn't.

I understand that.

My point is that as far back as 1857 , those who were NOT racists understood that Afro-Americans had EQUAL RIGHTS.

 

[Boss]

My point is that as far back as 1857 , those were NOT racists understood that Afro-Americans had EQUAL RIGHTS.

No... they may have felt like they SHOULD have those rights... the courts ruled otherwise.

You said they were citizens. If they were citizens then slavery was unconstitutional. So that wasn't the case. They weren't considered citizens until the 14th Amendment was ratified, making them citizens with constitutional rights.

 

[kaz]

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

Well what it was supposed to mean or what the founding fathers intended are not relevant here.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than the supreme court is a politburo, which I already know

 

[Boss]

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

Well what it was supposed to mean or what the founding fathers intended are not relevant here.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than the supreme court is a politburo, which I already know

Well all I did was to point out that SCOTUS and the US government instituted and upheld constitutional and perfectly legal slave ownership for 80-something years BEFORE a civil war. Whether the court had the authority to make the rulings they made or whether we are obligated to follow rulings we don't like... those are a different conversation. You can't use that to refute the aforementioned fact.

Right or wrong, slavery was legal and constitutional. Slaves were not citizens with rights, they were owned property. The CSA didn't decide that... the South didn't decide it.

 

[MarcATL]

What percentage would you say was built upon the backs of black slaves? How many Irish were ever used as slaves to develop this mighty nation?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

It's really not worth getting into a pissing contest over. In terms of what they built, they are really no different than the Acadians who came from Canada to New Orleans and worked chopping sugar cane for virtually nothing. Or the countless Chinese men who's dead bodies pave the beds of our transcontinental railroad. Or the millions of Irish and Italian immigrants who were forced into slavery to repay their debts for coming here. Lots of people have contributed to "building the nation" and it disrespects them to hog all the credit, don't you think?

I just wanted to know the percentage you gave the blacks for their contribution.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

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.

Interesting rhetoric, however, it didn't address my question. Care to try again?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[whitehall]

The flag that flew off the stern of slave ships for the 200 years of the inhuman abuses was predominately the Union Jack and later the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy as it existed during the the 19th century lasted about four years and suffered incredible abuses that would not have been tolerated even in the bloody 20th century warfare in Europe but pop culture idiots educated by deciplines not much more difficult than a condom on a banana fall for the liberal blame game. Hypocrite lefties condemn the Confederacy while desperately trying to make a living from the Civil War legacy. It's a difficult balancing act that

 

[Contumacious]

My point is that as far back as 1857 , those were NOT racists understood that Afro-Americans had EQUAL RIGHTS.

No... they may have felt like they SHOULD have those rights... the courts ruled otherwise.

You said they were citizens. If they were citizens then slavery was unconstitutional. So that wasn't the case. They weren't considered citizens until the 14th Amendment was ratified, making them citizens with constitutional rights.

Unconstitutional case law is void


Two justices, John McLean of Ohio and Benjamin R. Curtis of Massachusetts, wrote devastating critiques of Taney’s opinion. Curtis in particular undercut most of Taney’s historical arguments, showing that African Americans had voted in a number of states at the founding. “At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation,” he wrote:

All free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.

 

[waltky]

Granny still mad about it...

... Grant tricked Bobby Lee into believin'...

... dem blue-coats had tanks an' bazookas...

... to get him to surrender.

 

[Boss]

My point is that as far back as 1857 , those were NOT racists understood that Afro-Americans had EQUAL RIGHTS.

No... they may have felt like they SHOULD have those rights... the courts ruled otherwise.

You said they were citizens. If they were citizens then slavery was unconstitutional. So that wasn't the case. They weren't considered citizens until the 14th Amendment was ratified, making them citizens with constitutional rights.

Unconstitutional case law is void


Two justices, John McLean of Ohio and Benjamin R. Curtis of Massachusetts, wrote devastating critiques of Taney’s opinion. Curtis in particular undercut most of Taney’s historical arguments, showing that African Americans had voted in a number of states at the founding. “At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation,” he wrote:

All free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.

Well you're just being patently stupid now. The Supreme Court justices rule what is and isn't constitutional. They do this all the time. You're presenting the dissenting arguments made against Dred Scott but the case was ruled on by the court and the dissenting opinion lost. You're trying desperately to argue that the dissenting opinion carries some kind of legal weight or authority. It simply doesn't.

Now granted... AFTER passage and ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments, clearly this is the constitutional viewpoint from that moment forward... it doesn't retroactively apply to history. BEFORE these Amendments, that wasn't the constitutional viewpoint and that's why we needed the Amendments.

 

[Boss]

I just wanted to know the percentage you gave the blacks for their contribution.

You're asking for the impossible. I can't even begin to calculate this. They certainly had little to do with the financial backing for building the nation. They weren't instrumental in the planning or concept. They weren't engineers working on the infrastructure. They weren't city planners or architects. They weren't in positions of power, shaping the policies and plans... Most of the labor they provided was for private enterprise and not public works. So I would say their overall contribution in "building the country" is relatively small.

I know that probably runs against the grain of what you've been told or taught but it's the truth. Blacks have made tremendous contributions to our country and were vital in helping to generate the wealth that built the nation... but they didn't do this on their own. They sure as fuck didn't do it out of a sense of wanting to contribute. What you want is for someone to lay all the credit for the building of the nation on black people and that's not going to happen. Sorry!

 

[WheelieAddict]

The whining and revisionism from the losers really needs to stop. It's just pathetic.

 

[kaz]

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

Well what it was supposed to mean or what the founding fathers intended are not relevant here.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than the supreme court is a politburo, which I already know

Well all I did was to point out that SCOTUS and the US government instituted and upheld constitutional and perfectly legal slave ownership for 80-something years BEFORE a civil war. Whether the court had the authority to make the rulings they made or whether we are obligated to follow rulings we don't like... those are a different conversation. You can't use that to refute the aforementioned fact.

Right or wrong, slavery was legal and constitutional. Slaves were not citizens with rights, they were owned property. The CSA didn't decide that... the South didn't decide it.

With the ratification of the fifth amendment, the Federal government should never have helped return slaves who escaped as it was a violation of their Constitutional rights and they had the authority to prevent any State from returning a runaway slave who crossed State lines.

The Constitution gave the Federal government virtually zero power inside States. So saying it was "constitutional" is misleading. The Constitution didn't authorize the Federal government to end it as long as it occurred within the State. But the Constitution didn't authorize the Federal government to do pretty much anything within States. No one, white or black had a Constitutional right then from their State government to a trial by jury, to have a warrant, for free speech, to own a gun, to be put to death for illegal parking or anything else. The Constitution defined the Federal government and gave the government only power for interstate and foreign affairs.

After the civil war was when they amended the Constitution to force States to protect Constitutional rights

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I really never think about this till you leftwing loons start whining about it.

 

[Boss]

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

Well what it was supposed to mean or what the founding fathers intended are not relevant here.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than the supreme court is a politburo, which I already know

Well all I did was to point out that SCOTUS and the US government instituted and upheld constitutional and perfectly legal slave ownership for 80-something years BEFORE a civil war. Whether the court had the authority to make the rulings they made or whether we are obligated to follow rulings we don't like... those are a different conversation. You can't use that to refute the aforementioned fact.

Right or wrong, slavery was legal and constitutional. Slaves were not citizens with rights, they were owned property. The CSA didn't decide that... the South didn't decide it.

With the ratification of the fifth amendment, the Federal government should never have helped return slaves who escaped as it was a violation of their Constitutional rights and they had the authority to prevent any State from returning a runaway slave who crossed State lines.

The Constitution gave the Federal government virtually zero power inside States. So saying it was "constitutional" is misleading. The Constitution didn't authorize the Federal government to end it as long as it occurred within the State. But the Constitution didn't authorize the Federal government to do pretty much anything within States. No one, white or black had a Constitutional right then from their State government to a trial by jury, to have a warrant, for free speech, to own a gun, to be put to death for illegal parking or anything else. The Constitution defined the Federal government and gave the government only power for interstate and foreign affairs.

After the civil war was when they amended the Constitution to force States to protect Constitutional rights

No... It simply was NOT a violation of their Constitutional rights because they weren't considered citizens until the 14th Amendment. You're attempting to retroactively apply the 14th Amendment to the pre-Civil War era.