Strict Constitutionalists are racist

[ElmerMudd]

Our Constitution is a great document but those who do who do not belive it is a live document are racist.
Do you believe blacks are equal to 3/5ths of a white person? If you do you are a strict Constitutionalist and a racist.

 

[Vigilante]

Our Constitution is a great document but those who do who do not belive it is a live document are racist.
Do you believe blacks are equal to 3/5ths of a white person? If you do you are a strict Constitutionalist and a racist.

What amendment is it that says that?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Our Constitution is a great document but those who do who do not belive it is a live document are racist.
Do you believe blacks are equal to 3/5ths of a white person? If you do you are a strict Constitutionalist and a racist.

What amendment is it that says that?

Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution

 

[Vigilante]

Our Constitution is a great document but those who do who do not belive it is a live document are racist.
Do you believe blacks are equal to 3/5ths of a white person? If you do you are a strict Constitutionalist and a racist.

What amendment is it that says that?

Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution

Thank you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Strict Constitutionalists are racist”

No, but they are ignorant.

Indeed, there is no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist,’ ‘strict’ or otherwise.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

That conservatives disapprove of that case law because it conflicts with their errant, wrongheaded political dogma does not mean the Court is ‘wrong.’

The interpretive authority of the Court is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

And there is nothing in the text or history of the Constitution which suggests that the Founding Document must be interpreted in a ‘minimalist,’ ‘literal,’ or ‘strict’ manner – the notion that it should is a ridiculous, baseless rightwing contrivance completely devoid of fact or merit.

While it is true that some ‘strict constitutionalists’ are racists and bigots, who use their incorrect understanding of the Constitution to facilitate their racism and bigotry, most ‘strict constitutionalists’ are not racists, but frightened reactionaries hostile to change, diversity, and dissent.

 

[Vigilante]

“Strict Constitutionalists are racist”

No, but they are ignorant.

Indeed, there is no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist,’ ‘strict’ or otherwise.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

That conservatives disapprove of that case law because it conflicts with their errant, wrongheaded political dogma does not mean the Court is ‘wrong.’

The interpretive authority of the Court is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – consistent with the original intent of the Framers.

And there is nothing in the text or history of the Constitution which suggests that the Founding Document must be interpreted in a ‘minimalist,’ ‘literal,’ or ‘strict’ manner – the notion that it should is a ridiculous, baseless rightwing contrivance completely devoid of fact or merit.

While it is true that some ‘strict constitutionalists’ are racists and bigots, who use their incorrect understanding of the Constitution to facilitate their racism and bigotry, most ‘strict constitutionalists’ are not racists, but frightened reactionaries hostile to change, diversity, and dissent.

Sounds like you'd love Cuba to operate in!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Our Constitution is a great document but those who do who do not belive [sic] it is a live document are racist.
Do you believe blacks are equal to 3/5ths of a white person? If you do you are a strict Constitutionalist and a racist.

What amendment is it that says that?

Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution

Superseded and overturned by the Thirteenth through Fifteenth Amendments, which abolished slavery, as well as disenfranchisement and underrepresentation of those who had been slaves. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically abolishes the three-fifths rule.

To be a “strict Constitutionalist“ would be to insist on obedience to the Constitution, as it currently stands, including any changes legitimately enacted via the Amendment process. It is ridiculous and dishonest (in other words, “liberal”), to hold strict Constitutionalism to parts of the Constitution which are no longer valid, as a result of having been overturned by later amendments.