5 ms·

There are so many rulings, just in the last 25 years even, where SCOTUS has reaffirmed that warrantless search is not okay. This one is very much in line with t

There are so many rulings, just in the last 25 years even, where SCOTUS has reaffirmed that warrantless search is not okay. This one is very much in line with the topic, in fact. Carpenter v. United States (2018) This country has never been what you're saying. We have some over policing happening. That seems to come and go in every country and doesn't say anything by itself about what a county is about, especially where it's trending over a 25 year timeline in the opposite direction from what you're describing. Let it go to court, at least, before you flip your lid and turn on your countrymen. Please.

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
As people are getting shot by ICE today. Today on HN on the front page there was an article about someone being forced to use their biometric security to unlock their phone. And then to say this country has never been what I’m saying is to ignore Jim Crow, sundown towns that were prevalent into the mid 80s, etc.
- trimethylpurine 9mo ago
  Democrats (the South) always said that this country was always about slavery. They used that rhetoric to argue FOR slavery for decades after it was abolished. This is all documented in supreme court cases from the 18th century on up through the civil war. Some of the founding fathers argued as attorneys in some of those cases in fact, stating firmly that slavery was always illegal in the United States. Republicans (Lincoln included) pointed to the Constitution as evidence that slavery was always illegal and that the southern states had a limited time to abolish it (that's factually written in the Constitution, a concession made in order to earn their support in the revolution). The disagreement on that is exactly what led to the civil war. The South refused to live up to the Constitution's terms and end slavery, counter to the law. The Republicans won that war. We live in that country that won. Not the one you're describing. Jim Crow was a Southern state thing. The North never allowed it. We live in the North. The South is gone and it was never part of this country because it violated the laws that would have made it so. They rebelled against anti slavery laws from the beginning and they finally got what they deserved, to be conquered by the United States that we live in today. And then they still argued to keep slavery and the Supreme Court kept slapping it down. Over and over and over. If you believe that the United States was ever about slavery, then you carry the rhetoric of the very party that created Jim Crow and that supported slavery, and you make them the good guy in the story. You support their version, where it was always legal and they got screwed by the lying North. The irony... Don't ignore the writings of Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc. All wrote to say that slavery has no place in this country. And it never did! Their letters are preserved for you to read. They are available online or in one of the museums in DC. Probably the National Archive? Someone can correct me if they know. Anyway, that some people refuse to follow the law, isn't a reflection of the country as a whole. Similarly, when someone is killed in Norway, I don't jump to conclude that Norwegians are murderers. That wouldn't make any sense. Did you go to high school in the South somewhere? The revisionist's history of the US seems to stem from that part of the country. I'm just curious if it tracks.
  - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
    The constitution literally said that slaves were counted as 3/5th of a person - the actual founding documents. How can you say this country wasn’t about slavery from the beginning?
    - trimethylpurine 9mo ago
      I don't think you read my comment. I mentioned this exact thing. The 3/5 vote was part of how the North protected from the South using greater numbers (voting in place of their slaves) to remove the expiration date that the North placed on slavery as a concession. The North wanted to ensure that slaves would in fact be released as soon as possible, without losing the South as an ally against the impending invasion from England. Had they not reduced the voting ability of the South, the South would have simply removed that expiration date and kept their slaves. (They kept them anyway, that's why the civil war happened.)
      - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
        There are a lot of excuses being made to dispute the fact that this country literally has slavery built into its founding documents and let Jim Crow laws stand in a part of the country for almost a century later. There was no “expiration date” in the constitution. “Plessy vs Ferguson” was decided by the US Supreme Court after the Civil War which enshrined Jim Crow and “Separate but Equal”. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court outlawed bans on interracial marriage. In 1985 there were still sundown towns (https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/comments/1f4hzlt/oprah_visits_a_county_where_no_black_person_had/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/comments/1f4hzlt/oprah_visi...). This country was built on racism and it was enshrined into law up to 6 years before I was born In all fairness, my family had a house built here in 2016 and the only reason we sold in 2024 was to move to Florida. While my (stepson) was one of only 5 Black students in his high school, he never had any issues.
        trimethylpurine 9mo ago
        >There was no “expiration date” in the constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (often called the Slave Trade Clause) prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves prior to January 1, 1808. This effectively allowed the international slave trade to continue until that date, after which Congress could (and did) ban it. Seems I need to reword my take, as this demands a bit more specificity, but the overall take remains unchanged. Had the 3/5 provision not been made, the South would have further prevented the North from enforcing a ban on slavery and inequality, which was already in place in the North, and in place federally with the "created equal" component in the Declaration, as was argued by founders in court cases. We can't just ignore court documents and the Constitution itself, along with the Declaration. Not to mention the first draft of the Constitution which had a lot more provisions against slavery before the English forced then to take allies with the South or die. They had no choice but to agree to the South's terms and allow for the South's slaves, temporarily. A stark difference from the previous Constitution of the first Congress. You can try to frame it however you like, but you can't hide the fact that the founders wrote that slavery is bad, and they don't want it in this country even before it was a country. And they subsequently fought to eliminate it as soon as the wars were over. Those documents remain, right in the face of your argument. Sundown towns existing doesn't change that. There was no sundown country, just as this isn't a sex cult country, despite there being some law breaking Nexium participants setting up shop and torturing people. It happens, that doesn't mean we as a country yearn to have more racists walking around. In fact, I think if you read why Republicans voted Trump, it's because they perceive immigrants to be racist and they want to reduce the inflow of racist ideology and rape culture into the country. That's exactly the scare tactic that their advertising relies on. They believe they are the ones who aren't racist, just like Democrats. (I hate both political parties equally by the way. I'm not sure if that's clear from my commentary. But I reject the South's view of history because I can read the damn court cases and see that it's a total fabrication. And I know that Democrats like to spread that version as justification for why black people need help, and I think they know full well that it's bullshit, but it convinces juries on rare occasion so they continue to use it.)

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago

As people are getting shot by ICE today. Today on HN on the front page there was an article about someone being forced to use their biometric security to unlock their phone. And then to say this country has never been what I’m saying is to ignore Jim Crow, sundown towns that were prevalent into the mid 80s, etc.

trimethylpurine 9mo ago
Democrats (the South) always said that this country was always about slavery. They used that rhetoric to argue FOR slavery for decades after it was abolished. This is all documented in supreme court cases from the 18th century on up through the civil war. Some of the founding fathers argued as attorneys in some of those cases in fact, stating firmly that slavery was always illegal in the United States. Republicans (Lincoln included) pointed to the Constitution as evidence that slavery was always illegal and that the southern states had a limited time to abolish it (that's factually written in the Constitution, a concession made in order to earn their support in the revolution). The disagreement on that is exactly what led to the civil war. The South refused to live up to the Constitution's terms and end slavery, counter to the law. The Republicans won that war. We live in that country that won. Not the one you're describing. Jim Crow was a Southern state thing. The North never allowed it. We live in the North. The South is gone and it was never part of this country because it violated the laws that would have made it so. They rebelled against anti slavery laws from the beginning and they finally got what they deserved, to be conquered by the United States that we live in today. And then they still argued to keep slavery and the Supreme Court kept slapping it down. Over and over and over. If you believe that the United States was ever about slavery, then you carry the rhetoric of the very party that created Jim Crow and that supported slavery, and you make them the good guy in the story. You support their version, where it was always legal and they got screwed by the lying North. The irony... Don't ignore the writings of Washington, Franklin, Hancock, etc. All wrote to say that slavery has no place in this country. And it never did! Their letters are preserved for you to read. They are available online or in one of the museums in DC. Probably the National Archive? Someone can correct me if they know. Anyway, that some people refuse to follow the law, isn't a reflection of the country as a whole. Similarly, when someone is killed in Norway, I don't jump to conclude that Norwegians are murderers. That wouldn't make any sense. Did you go to high school in the South somewhere? The revisionist's history of the US seems to stem from that part of the country. I'm just curious if it tracks.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  The constitution literally said that slaves were counted as 3/5th of a person - the actual founding documents. How can you say this country wasn’t about slavery from the beginning?
  - trimethylpurine 9mo ago
    I don't think you read my comment. I mentioned this exact thing. The 3/5 vote was part of how the North protected from the South using greater numbers (voting in place of their slaves) to remove the expiration date that the North placed on slavery as a concession. The North wanted to ensure that slaves would in fact be released as soon as possible, without losing the South as an ally against the impending invasion from England. Had they not reduced the voting ability of the South, the South would have simply removed that expiration date and kept their slaves. (They kept them anyway, that's why the civil war happened.)
    - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
      There are a lot of excuses being made to dispute the fact that this country literally has slavery built into its founding documents and let Jim Crow laws stand in a part of the country for almost a century later. There was no “expiration date” in the constitution. “Plessy vs Ferguson” was decided by the US Supreme Court after the Civil War which enshrined Jim Crow and “Separate but Equal”. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court outlawed bans on interracial marriage. In 1985 there were still sundown towns (https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/comments/1f4hzlt/oprah_visits_a_county_where_no_black_person_had/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/comments/1f4hzlt/oprah_visi...). This country was built on racism and it was enshrined into law up to 6 years before I was born In all fairness, my family had a house built here in 2016 and the only reason we sold in 2024 was to move to Florida. While my (stepson) was one of only 5 Black students in his high school, he never had any issues.
      - trimethylpurine 9mo ago
        >There was no “expiration date” in the constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (often called the Slave Trade Clause) prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves prior to January 1, 1808. This effectively allowed the international slave trade to continue until that date, after which Congress could (and did) ban it. Seems I need to reword my take, as this demands a bit more specificity, but the overall take remains unchanged. Had the 3/5 provision not been made, the South would have further prevented the North from enforcing a ban on slavery and inequality, which was already in place in the North, and in place federally with the "created equal" component in the Declaration, as was argued by founders in court cases. We can't just ignore court documents and the Constitution itself, along with the Declaration. Not to mention the first draft of the Constitution which had a lot more provisions against slavery before the English forced then to take allies with the South or die. They had no choice but to agree to the South's terms and allow for the South's slaves, temporarily. A stark difference from the previous Constitution of the first Congress. You can try to frame it however you like, but you can't hide the fact that the founders wrote that slavery is bad, and they don't want it in this country even before it was a country. And they subsequently fought to eliminate it as soon as the wars were over. Those documents remain, right in the face of your argument. Sundown towns existing doesn't change that. There was no sundown country, just as this isn't a sex cult country, despite there being some law breaking Nexium participants setting up shop and torturing people. It happens, that doesn't mean we as a country yearn to have more racists walking around. In fact, I think if you read why Republicans voted Trump, it's because they perceive immigrants to be racist and they want to reduce the inflow of racist ideology and rape culture into the country. That's exactly the scare tactic that their advertising relies on. They believe they are the ones who aren't racist, just like Democrats. (I hate both political parties equally by the way. I'm not sure if that's clear from my commentary. But I reject the South's view of history because I can read the damn court cases and see that it's a total fabrication. And I know that Democrats like to spread that version as justification for why black people need help, and I think they know full well that it's bullshit, but it convinces juries on rare occasion so they continue to use it.)