So who is still mad about the civil war?

[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

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.

My argument that you can't retroactively apply the 14th amendment to the pre-civil war era is attempting to retroactively apply the 14th amendment to the pre-civil war era?



Maybe you should try reading my post again...

 

[Boss]

My argument that you can't retroactively apply the 14th amendment to the pre-civil war era is attempting to retroactively apply the 14th amendment to the pre-civil war era?



Maybe you should try reading my post again...

I read your post... you think they shouldn't have denied slaves their 5th amendment rights. But they ruled slaves didn't have rights, they were property. So how could they be denying rights they didn't recognize?

I mean, I guess I get what you're saying... in a perfect world, they would have recognized slaves were citizens and deserved constitutional rights... they didn't. What they SHOULD have done is irrelevant... we can't judge the people of that time based on what should have been... we have to go by what WAS.

 

[kaz]

My argument that you can't retroactively apply the 14th amendment to the pre-civil war era is attempting to retroactively apply the 14th amendment to the pre-civil war era?



Maybe you should try reading my post again...

I read your post... you think they shouldn't have denied slaves their 5th amendment rights. But they ruled slaves didn't have rights, they were property. So how could they be denying rights they didn't recognize?

I mean, I guess I get what you're saying... in a perfect world, they would have recognized slaves were citizens and deserved constitutional rights... they didn't. What they SHOULD have done is irrelevant... we can't judge the people of that time based on what should have been... we have to go by what WAS.

You didn't read it very well. My argument was that no one, black or white had Constitutional rights from STATE governments pre-civil war. How did you read it twice now and not grasp that? In fact, you said I said the opposite of that and I said people DID have Constitutional rights from State governments before the 14th. Whites could have been held as slaves before the Civil War too within States and the Feds had no Constitutional authority to stop it. Again, how did you read it TWICE and not get that? Maybe instead of reading posts multiple times and still not getting what they say, you should slow down and read them more carefully.

 

[kaz]

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

...

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

You're attempting to retroactively apply the 14th Amendment to the pre-Civil War era.

Again, boss, you said I said the opposite of what I actually said and you still don't get that. I said you did NOT have Constitutional rights from your State government before the civil war. We can't proceed in any discussion until you say my position correctly

 

[Mudda]

Porch monkeys are still mad about slavery, does that count?

 

[Boss]

Again, boss, you said I said the opposite of what I actually said and you still don't get that. I said you did NOT have Constitutional rights from your State government before the civil war. We can't proceed in any discussion until you say my position correctly

Let's approach this a different way... what is it you disagree with me on?

 

[kaz]

Again, boss, you said I said the opposite of what I actually said and you still don't get that. I said you did NOT have Constitutional rights from your State government before the civil war. We can't proceed in any discussion until you say my position correctly

Let's approach this a different way... what is it you disagree with me on?

That we should just accept that the Supreme Court is word

 

[Boss]

That we should just accept that the Supreme Court is word

The thread topic and OP are about the Civil War and people's attitudes about it. This leads to a discussion of historical perspectives with regard to what is "constitutional" today versus then. You're wanting to debate the role and authority of the Supreme Court... a completely different conversation.

If we're going to view this as what SHOULD have happened... how about we go back to 1776 and how the founding fathers should have emancipated the slaves and made them citizens with equal constitutional rights? Or even before, how England should have disallowed Colonialists to enslave people? We can play that game all day long, it doesn't do any good.

We have a government, a congress, a court, states, a constitution... it operates how it operates. I don't know why you believe the Federal government didn't have the right to intervene or have dominion over the state laws. They passed the Indian Removal Act.. They passed the Fugitive Slave Act.. clearly they WERE assuming authority.... what they SHOULD have been doing is beside the point.

 

[kaz]

That we should just accept that the Supreme Court is word

The thread topic and OP are about the Civil War and people's attitudes about it. This leads to a discussion of historical perspectives with regard to what is "constitutional" today versus then. You're wanting to debate the role and authority of the Supreme Court... a completely different conversation.

If we're going to view this as what SHOULD have happened... how about we go back to 1776 and how the founding fathers should have emancipated the slaves and made them citizens with equal constitutional rights? Or even before, how England should have disallowed Colonialists to enslave people? We can play that game all day long, it doesn't do any good.

We have a government, a congress, a court, states, a constitution... it operates how it operates. I don't know why you believe the Federal government didn't have the right to intervene or have dominion over the state laws. They passed the Indian Removal Act.. They passed the Fugitive Slave Act.. clearly they WERE assuming authority.... what they SHOULD have been doing is beside the point.

Both of those involved crossing State lines

 

[Boss]

Both of those involved crossing State lines

So what? It's certainly the Federal government exerting authority over the presumptive rights of individuals in states. They didn't recognize rights for native Americans or slaves. They weren't citizens. The slaves became citizens with ratification of the 14th amendment, Native Americans had to wait until 1921.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda... doesn't matter... that's what happened.