Which Party is the most Constitutional?

[peach174]

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

you forgot your meds today?

You have a real problem with actual historical facts don't you?

 

[Sallow]

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

What unadulterated crap.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

To be sure, the Constitution doesn't say that a slave is 3/5 of a person. And it doesn't even mention blacks (but then, liberals don't really get past We the People . . .). It says simply that representation and taxation shall be derived from 3/5 of the slave population.

The clause anticipates manumission.

so male freed slaves would have a vote?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

you forgot your meds today?

You have a real problem with actual historical facts don't you?

nope. just your inability to read and comprehend what you are responding to

 

[ScienceRocks]

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

What unadulterated crap.

Yep,

If the south had a much bigger population = deserving of more seats.

 

[natstew]

It would be much like asking who is the party that most closely follows the carvings on a cave wall. At the time the carvings were made, they were probably well thought out. Like our Constitution or any document written in the history of writing...it's limited by it's author's experiences.

The notion hat we should worship some 200+ year old business model without question is preposterous on it's surface. Yet, here we are, in some bizzaro world where adherence to the alleged best minds' work from 200+ years ago is our boundary. In point and fact we do not even have the best mind's (singular) work to act as our guide since he (no she's of course) would have had to compromise at some point.

For what it's worth the document has been incredibly durable but it no longer serves us well. It needs--NOT TO BE REPLACED--but perfected to make sure it continues to be durable despite the best efforts of the Parties to circumvent, obfuscate, and outright ignore.

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

Hey, the South wanted Blacks counted a whole persons. It was the Northern States that insisted they not be counted as persons at all! the 3/5 was a compromise to get the Constitution passed and ratified by all the States.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Three-Fifths Compromise

 

[Sallow]

Another dumb poll.

It's TK.

 

[norwegen]

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

To be sure, the Constitution doesn't say that a slave is 3/5 of a person. And it doesn't even mention blacks (but then, liberals don't really get past We the People . . .). It says simply that representation and taxation shall be derived from 3/5 of the slave population.

The clause anticipates manumission.

so male freed slaves would have a vote?

What does this mean? Are you disputing what I said?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

Hey, the South wanted Blacks counted a whole persons. It was the Northern States that insisted they not be counted as persons at all! the 3/5 was a compromise to get the Constitution passed and ratified by all the States.

In the constitutional context the south desired, slaves would have been counted in the population, not as voters or citizens

slaves, freed slaves?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

Hey, the South wanted Blacks counted a whole persons. It was the Northern States that insisted they not be counted as persons at all! the 3/5 was a compromise to get the Constitution passed and ratified by all the States.

The South wanted them counted as persons to pad their House of Representative numbers.

They wanted them counted as chattel in every other regard.

 

[peach174]

Fact

Since slaves could not vote, non-slaves in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. A compromise which was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.
An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

 

[Sallow]

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

Hey, the South wanted Blacks counted a whole persons. It was the Northern States that insisted they not be counted as persons at all! the 3/5 was a compromise to get the Constitution passed and ratified by all the States.

As "persons" with no rights.

It didn't make any sense. They had no representation.

Hence the compromise.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To be sure, the Constitution doesn't say that a slave is 3/5 of a person. And it doesn't even mention blacks (but then, liberals don't really get past We the People . . .). It says simply that representation and taxation shall be derived from 3/5 of the slave population.

The clause anticipates manumission.

so male freed slaves would have a vote?

What does this mean? Are you disputing what I said?

the context of the compromise

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

Hey, the South wanted Blacks counted a whole persons. It was the Northern States that insisted they not be counted as persons at all! the 3/5 was a compromise to get the Constitution passed and ratified by all the States.

As "persons" with no rights.

It didn't make any sense. They had no representation.

Hence the compromise.

except our adored and idolized founders and framers in slave states thought persons with no rights made absolute sense.

see?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

you forgot your meds today?

You have a real problem with actual historical facts don't you?

You are unbelievably stupid.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Fact

...

facts with little to no context make for poor discusion

 

[norwegen]

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

Hey, the South wanted Blacks counted a whole persons. It was the Northern States that insisted they not be counted as persons at all! the 3/5 was a compromise to get the Constitution passed and ratified by all the States.

Not blacks. Slaves.

And not persons. Populations. Read the clause; it refers not to whole persons but rather to whole numbers of persons.

Please tell me you're smarter than these libs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you forgot your meds today?

You have a real problem with actual historical facts don't you?

You are unbelievably stupid.

agreed

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

Hey, the South wanted Blacks counted a whole persons. It was the Northern States that insisted they not be counted as persons at all! the 3/5 was a compromise to get the Constitution passed and ratified by all the States.

Not blacks. Slaves.

And not persons. Populations. Read the clause; it refers not to whole persons but rather to whole numbers of persons.

Please tell me you're smarter than these libs.

good gawd! what an idiot! yet another Commander McBragg showing off their imbecilities?

Populations are comprised of what?

clue: persons?

who were the slaves in America's slave states?

clue: blacks