> 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

> 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.