4 ms·

Maybe because I am making no fundamental argument? I have no interest in a dialog. You made several egregious errors. They were pointed out. First that the

Maybe because I am making no fundamental argument? I have no interest in a dialog. You made several egregious errors. They were pointed out. First that the US Constitution is not a moral document. Second, that SCOTUS is an "ultimate" arbiter. If you do not believe that the US Constitution and other founding documents were products of Enlightenment thinking and that natural law principles did not inform the debate then we really have nothing more to discuss. You are simply choosing to remain ignorant of the history. I do not care to grant your stipulation. There is nothing to stipulate to. You are just flatly wrong. I'm assuming you are one of those "living" document types and want to talk about what the meaning of the word "is" is. My tank full of patience for that ran out long ago. Your reply makes no sense. Also your "yelling" comment is rhetorical grandstanding. I have barely raised an eyebrow, let alone my voice. I also notice you failed completely to address the fundamental point regarding morality and the US Constitution with respect to slavery. Do you believe it was rational thought and not moral judgments that led to the conclusion that slaves were 3/5 citizens for apportionment?

tptacek 14y ago
Then, as you say, we have nothing more to discuss, and I'm spared the need to respond to your non-sequitur question.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  Non-sequitur? Perhaps the meaning of that phrase eludes you? You wrote: "The Constitution largely avoids moral concerns --- or, more precisely, values and substantive rights." I replied that slavery is essentially a moral question and is at the very heart of the Constitution. It would not have been ratified without it. You ignored this statement entirely in your vacuous reply. Did that help you to see how it follows?

4 ms·

Maybe because I am making no fundamental argument? I have no interest in a dialog. You made several egregious errors. They were pointed out. First that the

by shawn-butler 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago
Then, as you say, we have nothing more to discuss, and I'm spared the need to respond to your non-sequitur question.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  Non-sequitur? Perhaps the meaning of that phrase eludes you? You wrote: "The Constitution largely avoids moral concerns --- or, more precisely, values and substantive rights." I replied that slavery is essentially a moral question and is at the very heart of the Constitution. It would not have been ratified without it. You ignored this statement entirely in your vacuous reply. Did that help you to see how it follows?