dmcoco84 4 #1 April 16, 2011 The House of Representatives read aloud the Constitution... but they left out, the 3/5ths Compromise. So, was the Compromise... a Good Thing? Or, a Bad Thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #2 April 16, 2011 The constitution is overrated. If your rights are inalienable, why then do you need a constitution? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #3 April 16, 2011 QuoteThe constitution is overrated. If your rights are inalienable, why then do you need a constitution? To protect us from aliens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #4 April 16, 2011 It was a good thing. It prevented the Southern states from having as much power in congress as they would have had slaves been counted as a full person. It was the South that wanted them counted as a whole.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 April 16, 2011 The 3/5 Compromise is not part of the Constitution anymore and hasn't been for almost 150 years (Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments). Why the hell would they read parts of the Constitution that are superceded? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #6 April 16, 2011 QuoteThe 3/5 Compromise is not part of the Constitution anymore and hasn't been for almost 150 years (Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments). Why the hell would they read parts of the Constitution that are superceded? To give context to the 13th and 14th Amendments.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #7 April 16, 2011 QuoteThe House of Representatives read aloud the Constitution... but they left out, the 3/5ths Compromise. So, was the Compromise... a Good Thing? Or, a Bad Thing? You expect the posters here to read and comprehend history? The knucklehead RWCs don't understand ANY of that at all. They spew their ignorant tripe, repeats of the talking points generated by the corporate mass media machine. Education and intellectual curiosity are NOT part of what they are. They are ignorant and extremely proud of it. Just like their hero Ronnie Rayguns. It used to be shameful to be an ignorant doofus. Now it is part and parcel of the Republican/RWC way of being. The three fifths compromise was necessary to get the Constitution passed. The founding fathers knew that they had set up the Civil War and hoped that future politicians could work out the SLAVERY issue without war. It didn't happen. Time magazine has an excellent article on the Civil War in the current issue. The facts are, and this comes from the leadership of the Confederacy, the issue that caused the Civil War was slavery. The bullshit about states rights and central government powers are tiny side issues. The commanding issue was slavery and the spread of the odious practice as the country expanded westward. Any argument to the contrary completely ignors the documented and historically accurate words of the leaders of the Confederacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 April 16, 2011 That's editorializing the Constitution, John. Did they read: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof?". Just to give context to the 17th Amendment? How about the 18th Amendment to give context to the 22nd? Do we teach people how to cut away with Capewells to give context to the three-ring system? Or when checked out in the Cessna 172 SP I'm flying should I receive a carb heat instruction to give context to the operating system on it? Maybe explain how to set flaps to 40 degrees on it for context? Or do we read the operating instructions as they exist? If it is a history lesson then by all means! Let's include the Senators selected by the legislators (the Seventeenth Amendment is one I'd like to see repealed). Or perhaps focus on our history of the income tax being Unconstitutional. Or of banning alcohol. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #9 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe House of Representatives read aloud the Constitution... but they left out, the 3/5ths Compromise. So, was the Compromise... a Good Thing? Or, a Bad Thing? You expect the posters here to read and comprehend history? The knucklehead RWCs don't understand ANY of that at all. They spew their ignorant tripe, repeats of the talking points generated by the corporate mass media machine. Education and intellectual curiosity are NOT part of what they are. They are ignorant and extremely proud of it. Just like their hero Ronnie Rayguns. It used to be shameful to be an ignorant doofus. Now it is part and parcel of the Republican/RWC way of being. The three fifths compromise was necessary to get the Constitution passed. The founding fathers knew that they had set up the Civil War and hoped that future politicians could work out the SLAVERY issue without war. It didn't happen. Time magazine has an excellent article on the Civil War in the current issue. The facts are, and this comes from the leadership of the Confederacy, the issue that caused the Civil War was slavery. The bullshit about states rights and central government powers are tiny side issues. The commanding issue was slavery and the spread of the odious practice as the country expanded westward. Any argument to the contrary completely ignors the documented and historically accurate words of the leaders of the Confederacy. So, given your understanding of the facts ...was the compromise a good thing or a bad thing? What is your understanding of the reason for the compromise originally? Was it simply to assign the slaves 3/5 personhood to get the slaveholding states to ratify (because, after all, the slaveholders believed that the slaves were not wholly human!)? ...or was it to limit the electoral power of the slaveholders who derived power from greater numbers in population (therefore more representatives in congress). The slaves could not vote in their interests anyway so the greater population numbers allowed the landowners to carry more weight in congress. Was the "3/5 Compromise" included to mitigate that power or was it to put in there to codify the sub-person status of the slaves? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 April 16, 2011 If there's a mirror in front of you, I'd think that reading your post aloud and replacing "RWC" and "They" with "You" would be apropos. Thanks for adding so little substance. At least Kallend provided something logical that can have some reasonable disagreement. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #11 April 17, 2011 >Did they read: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators >from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof?". Just to give context to the 17th >Amendment? They should, if they claim they are reading the US Constitution. If they claim they are reading an abridged version, read whatever they like. >Do we teach people how to cut away with Capewells to give context to the three-ring >system? Nope. But if you tell someone "I'm going to read you the SIM" and then you leave out everything about canopy control, because you figure it's not really applicable to them - you're not reading them the SIM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 April 17, 2011 Quote Nope. But if you tell someone "I'm going to read you the SIM" and then you leave out everything about canopy control, because you figure it's not really applicable to them - you're not reading them the SIM. Does the SIM keep superceded theory in there, so the current advice has context and meaning? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 April 17, 2011 I disagree, Bill. It WAS in the Constitution but isn't anymore. That being the case we should not read Amendments because we want the original Constitution, not the present day version. Do you read the SIM for a history lesson? Or do you read the SIM to find out how things work now? The Constitution is the operator's manual. Is there any point in reading about prohibition of alcohol? Or saying, "Hey! The Constitution says Senators are elected by state legislatures?" No. Because it doesn't say that. It did but not any more. I think we can agree to disagree here. When running the government I don't think that there is any use in discussing something that has been invalid for 148 years. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #14 April 17, 2011 >It WAS in the Constitution but isn't anymore. No, it really is. Google the US Constitution; the original is still the law of the land. Parts have not been deleted due to newer amendments, they have just been amended by later amendments (hence the name.) >Do you read the SIM for a history lesson? Or do you read the SIM to find out how >things work now? 99% for how things work now. 1% for how things used to work, since many jumpers (myself included) learned under a very different SIM, and it is useful to understand how it's changed. >The Constitution is the operator's manual. Is there any point in reading about >prohibition of alcohol? Yes, there is - because it didn't work. Do you honestly think there is no value in a politician knowing that prohibition didn't work? I think there's a lot of value there. >When running the government I don't think that there is any use in discussing >something that has been invalid for 148 years. No problem. Get them to stop reading the US Constitution and your problem is solved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 April 17, 2011 Most of the original Constitution still is valid. But let's say we decided to count slaves as 3/5. That would cause problems since there are none. Read the valid parts and don't read the invalid parts unless you are talking history or are trying to make a point about how it used to be. So if the Republicans want to read the current version, then they'll read the current version. If the Dems want to read all repealed provisions as operating instructions, then I'd object. If they wanted to read repealed stuff as "this used to be part of these instructions" then by all means! Much of what you say is a history lesson. I'll end with this: the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Law is nothing more or less than words. That's it - words. Maybe some numbers mixed in, but law is words. Some words have been removed or replaced with other words by other words. The 3/5 language isn't there. If I'm working on a case and want to cite it as authority I could be sanctioned because it was superseded - removed and replaced by language of the Thirteenth Amendment. It's been relegated to history - a dark and sad piece of history. Again - I see your point. I just disagree in this context, imagine if they'd actually read it: "Republicans think they have the power to treat slavesa as 3/5 if a person!!!" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #16 April 18, 2011 QuoteThat's editorializing the Constitution, John. Did they read: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof?". Just to give context to the 17th Amendment? How about the 18th Amendment to give context to the 22nd? Do we teach people how to cut away with Capewells to give context to the three-ring system? Or when checked out in the Cessna 172 SP I'm flying should I receive a carb heat instruction to give context to the operating system on it? Maybe explain how to set flaps to 40 degrees on it for context? Or do we read the operating instructions as they exist? If it is a history lesson then by all means! Let's include the Senators selected by the legislators (the Seventeenth Amendment is one I'd like to see repealed). Or perhaps focus on our history of the income tax being Unconstitutional. Or of banning alcohol. To the best of my knowledge the words of the Constitution are exactly the same as they were 200+ years ago. And then there's a series of amendatory changes that are listed separately. Omitting the embarrassing parts for political gain is just a cheap stunt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #17 April 18, 2011 Why would the 3/5ths compromise be embarrassing? Although many want to not recognize it as such, it kept the South from having as much power. Civil rights advocates should be embarrassed for wanting to manipulate the truth about it. I didn't even need a crappy analogy to discuss the issue, imagine that! People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbrown 0 #18 April 18, 2011 QuoteMost of the original Constitution still is valid. But let's say we decided to count slaves as 3/5. That would cause problems since there are none. Quote Really? You just don't have a grasp on reality do you ? Do you really believe there are no slaves in the US today, lawrocket? Oh what a blinfolded and sheltered life you live! Peace, Jim B. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #19 April 18, 2011 >Oh what a blinfolded and sheltered life you live! Whereas you have told us that you have made the decision to give up your freedom and be a slave. Who is the worse off - someone who has not yet "seen the light" so to speak, or someone who has seen it and chosen slavery over freedom? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #20 April 18, 2011 QuoteTo the best of my knowledge the words of the Constitution are exactly the same as they were 200+ years ago. And then there's a series of amendatory changes that are listed separately. Omitting the embarrassing parts for political gain is just a cheap stunt. Then the best of your knowledg is sorely lacking. The words on the parchment haven't changed. But the effective text of the constitution has changed. "The constitution" is a law. Or set of laws, if you prefer. If I were to read you the law related to carrying a firearm, would you want me to read the text as it is in effect today? Or would you rather hear the original version, plus all the edits, revisions, deleted sections? Why take issue with reading the law as is? Why insist on reading parts that no longer apply? Did they say their purpose was a history lesson? Or did someone say that they were concerned that the government wasn't following the constitution as it applies today? Or are you putting on a cheap stunt in calling their actions a cheap stunt, just because you don't agree with them?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dmcoco84 4 #21 April 20, 2011 That's it...? No one else? Quade... No? You don't want none of this action? Don't wanna throw down a few large... "Put It All On Black?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dmcoco84 4 #22 August 23, 2011 Bump Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lost_n_confuzd 0 #23 August 23, 2011 If your intent is to remind listeners of the law they are supposed to uphold and follow, then leaving out the 3/5s Compromise would be appropriate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 2,400 #19 April 18, 2011 >Oh what a blinfolded and sheltered life you live! Whereas you have told us that you have made the decision to give up your freedom and be a slave. Who is the worse off - someone who has not yet "seen the light" so to speak, or someone who has seen it and chosen slavery over freedom? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #20 April 18, 2011 QuoteTo the best of my knowledge the words of the Constitution are exactly the same as they were 200+ years ago. And then there's a series of amendatory changes that are listed separately. Omitting the embarrassing parts for political gain is just a cheap stunt. Then the best of your knowledg is sorely lacking. The words on the parchment haven't changed. But the effective text of the constitution has changed. "The constitution" is a law. Or set of laws, if you prefer. If I were to read you the law related to carrying a firearm, would you want me to read the text as it is in effect today? Or would you rather hear the original version, plus all the edits, revisions, deleted sections? Why take issue with reading the law as is? Why insist on reading parts that no longer apply? Did they say their purpose was a history lesson? Or did someone say that they were concerned that the government wasn't following the constitution as it applies today? Or are you putting on a cheap stunt in calling their actions a cheap stunt, just because you don't agree with them?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #21 April 20, 2011 That's it...? No one else? Quade... No? You don't want none of this action? Don't wanna throw down a few large... "Put It All On Black?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #23 August 23, 2011 If your intent is to remind listeners of the law they are supposed to uphold and follow, then leaving out the 3/5s Compromise would be appropriate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
