4 ms·

I'm not arguing for one side or the other. I'm telling you how it works in practice. Complain all you like. Our Constitution spells out in very clear terms t

• syshum 10y ago
  >>Our Constitution spells out in very clear terms that blacks are to be considered 3/5th of a white man for the purposes of representation in Congress. If that term itself isn't an example of how wrong it is to be a strict textualist I don't know a better example. Then you do not know or understand the history or how the constitution works First, the 3/5th's clause was actually an anti-slavery measure. It reduced the power the Slave State whom wanted to count All slaves as persons for the purposes of Congressional Representation but not allow them to vote for site representation. This would have given slave states MUCH greater power in congress as well as the Electoral College and likely would have delayed Abolishment of slavery for decades. It may have also prevented Lincoln from even becoming president. Further the Constitution is not overwritten but AMENDED so the Orginal Text remains for people to learn from. the 3/5th clause today has no authority because of the 14th amendment. It is not however removed from the Constitution because the Founders believed (and I concur) that a key aspect of not repeating past mistakes is to have those mistakes clear and ever present not hidden away to be forgotten. Being a strict textualist of the constitution does not mean you believe all non-white people should only be counted as 3/5ths a person. a Strict Textualist also applies all Amendments which nullifies the 3/5th clause >>I wouldn't make the mistake of pretending that the Constitution is a perfect document. You shouldn't either. I dont, I largely take Lysander Spooner's vision of the constitution. "The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living [two hundred] years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. " -- Lysander Spooner, NO TREASON No. VI. That said it is the current law of land, and I have done alot of research into American History, the constitution, and the related topics. It is also important to point out that no one viewed it, or views it as perfect, that is why we have an amendment process. What I find alarming and sad is that we have ceased amending the constitution, in favor of Radical "interpretations" by the courts, or simply ignoring inconvenient sections instead of putting in the hard work of passing and ratifying an actual Amendment. The last amendment to the constitution took 202 years to ratify... That I find very sad
• wtbob 10y ago
  > Our Constitution spells out in very clear terms that blacks are to be considered 3/5th of a white man for the purposes of representation in Congress. If that term itself isn't an example of how wrong it is to be a strict textualist I don't know a better example. No, it doesn't; it states, 'Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.' It doesn't say a word about blacks or whites (although it does mention untaxed Indians). And that clause no longer applies, because it was removed by a later amendment. So: a) the Constitution does not and never did say that blacks count as 3/5 of a person; and b) the clause not counting slaves and those serving life prison sentences for purposes of representation has been deleted. > I wouldn't make the mistake of pretending that the Constitution is a perfect document. Of course it's not perfect. It's a damn sight better than what we've got now though.