Total Posts:189|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:41:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com...

The court Thursday ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.
The ruling is a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains intact.


This is certainly BAD NEWS FOR AMERICA
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:42:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:41:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
what else is new with the Supreme Court.

Apparently, they ruled in favour of it as the lawyers argued that it was a tax. EEK! NO MORE TAXES!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:44:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:42:23 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:41:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
what else is new with the Supreme Court.

Apparently, they ruled in favour of it as the lawyers argued that it was a tax. EEK! NO MORE TAXES!

From one of the blogs i subscribed to:

The Supreme Court hasn't found a major piece of economic legislation unconstitutional for violating the enumerated powers of Congress since the 1930s. And the Supreme Court today is truly conservative, not in the liberal-conservative sense, but in the sense that they don't want to make big waves and they generally accept prior Supreme Court precedent.

So I find it hard getting excited about this when I am nearly certain the outcome will be that Obamacare is upheld.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:44:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
NO. No. NO.

Uh uh. Uh uh. Uh uh.

I would've thought that they'd at LEAST strike individual mandate down. What bullsh1t.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:45:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
lol...the same court that said it was legal to imprison people for looking Japanese. But, they're right on this one. The Constitutionality of an action, is really ultimately only half concerned with the Constitution. The other half is derived from the general consensus of what is legal in the time period, and the personal opinions held by the Justices.

This is likely what the founders wanted.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:48:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:44:45 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
NO. No. NO.

Uh uh. Uh uh. Uh uh.

I would've thought that they'd at LEAST strike individual mandate down. What bullsh1t.

+infinity!

JOHNSON/GRAY 2012!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:49:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:45:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
lol...the same court that said it was legal to imprison people for looking Japanese. But, they're right on this one. The Constitutionality of an action, is really ultimately only half concerned with the Constitution. The other half is derived from the general consensus of what is legal in the time period, and the personal opinions held by the Justices.

This is likely what the founders wanted.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:51:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:45:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
lol...the same court that said it was legal to imprison people for looking Japanese. But, they're right on this one. The Constitutionality of an action, is really ultimately only half concerned with the Constitution. The other half is derived from the general consensus of what is legal in the time period, and the personal opinions held by the Justices.

: This is likely what the founders wanted.


Wall of Shame
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:54:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:45:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
lol...the same court that said it was legal to imprison people for looking Japanese. But, they're right on this one. The Constitutionality of an action, is really ultimately only half concerned with the Constitution. The other half is derived from the general consensus of what is legal in the time period, and the personal opinions held by the Justices.

This is likely what the founders wanted.

If your going to apply the living constitution mentality, then the constitution itself becomes meaningless because the Supreme Court can interpret it anyway it wants.

Don't try to revoke "that's what the founders wanted". Utter bs.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:54:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:51:16 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:45:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
lol...the same court that said it was legal to imprison people for looking Japanese. But, they're right on this one. The Constitutionality of an action, is really ultimately only half concerned with the Constitution. The other half is derived from the general consensus of what is legal in the time period, and the personal opinions held by the Justices.

: This is likely what the founders wanted.


Wall of Shame

Double Shame'd.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:56:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:52:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
ike, who cares what the Founders wanted?

We should treat their work just as Garrison did :)

Because the wrote the constitution. It's like saying If worded a will badly, someone got money that they shouldn't have due to some loophole, and said "that's what the person wanted" when he/she clearly didn't.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:58:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law . . . economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics." -Ludvig von Mises
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:58:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:56:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:52:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
ike, who cares what the Founders wanted?

We should treat their work just as Garrison did :)

Because the wrote the constitution.
And that has authority to rule over us because . . . .
It's like saying If worded a will badly, someone got money that they shouldn't have due to some loophole, and said "that's what the person wanted" when he/she clearly didn't.
The Founders clearly wanted slavery; they all owned slaves, preserved it in the Constitution, and enacted legislation that promoted it. I couldn't care less about what they wanted.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:59:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:54:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:45:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
lol...the same court that said it was legal to imprison people for looking Japanese. But, they're right on this one. The Constitutionality of an action, is really ultimately only half concerned with the Constitution. The other half is derived from the general consensus of what is legal in the time period, and the personal opinions held by the Justices.

This is likely what the founders wanted.

If your going to apply the living constitution mentality, then the constitution itself becomes meaningless because the Supreme Court can interpret it anyway it wants.

Don't try to revoke "that's what the founders wanted". Utter bs.

lol yeah, that's exactly what the founders wanted. I'm pretty sure this was established when the Court gave themselves the power to strike down laws.

The open interpretation and ambiguous wording was deliberate.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:59:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
They were also amazingly hypocritical. They fought against British tyranny and then suppressed rebellion against their tyranny once the British fled.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:02:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:58:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:56:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:52:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
ike, who cares what the Founders wanted?

We should treat their work just as Garrison did :)

Because the wrote the constitution.
And that has authority to rule over us because . . . .
It's like saying If worded a will badly, someone got money that they shouldn't have due to some loophole, and said "that's what the person wanted" when he/she clearly didn't.
The Founders clearly wanted slavery; they all owned slaves, preserved it in the Constitution, and enacted legislation that promoted it. I couldn't care less about what they wanted.

Actually, they really wanted to abolish slavery. It was originally in the Declaration of Independence as a grievance against the King. However, they couldn't gain independence and abolish it, because all the southern colonies pitched a b1tch over it.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:04:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:59:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
They were also amazingly hypocritical. They fought against British tyranny and then suppressed rebellion against their tyranny once the British fled.

If they didn't this country wouldn't exist in the form it does now. You can't allow the government to be ineffective, otherwise people would revolt their way into separate countries,...a continuous division according to each group's qualms, resulting in anarchy.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:04:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 10:02:19 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:58:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:56:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:52:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
ike, who cares what the Founders wanted?

We should treat their work just as Garrison did :)

Because the wrote the constitution.
And that has authority to rule over us because . . . .
It's like saying If worded a will badly, someone got money that they shouldn't have due to some loophole, and said "that's what the person wanted" when he/she clearly didn't.
The Founders clearly wanted slavery; they all owned slaves, preserved it in the Constitution, and enacted legislation that promoted it. I couldn't care less about what they wanted.

Actually, they really wanted to abolish slavery.
Could you show me where? I couldn't find it.

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and corresponden
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:05:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 9:58:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:56:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:52:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
ike, who cares what the Founders wanted?

We should treat their work just as Garrison did :)

Because the wrote the constitution.
And that has authority to rule over us because . . . .
It's like saying If worded a will badly, someone got money that they shouldn't have due to some loophole, and said "that's what the person wanted" when he/she clearly didn't.
The Founders clearly wanted slavery; they all owned slaves, preserved it in the Constitution, and enacted legislation that promoted it. I couldn't care less about what they wanted.

If you believe the Constitution is valid, then it matters greatly what the people who wrote the document thought. I assume though that you don't see the constitution as valid anyways, so this argument is moot.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:05:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 10:02:19 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:58:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:56:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:52:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
ike, who cares what the Founders wanted?

We should treat their work just as Garrison did :)

Because the wrote the constitution.
And that has authority to rule over us because . . . .
It's like saying If worded a will badly, someone got money that they shouldn't have due to some loophole, and said "that's what the person wanted" when he/she clearly didn't.
The Founders clearly wanted slavery; they all owned slaves, preserved it in the Constitution, and enacted legislation that promoted it. I couldn't care less about what they wanted.

Actually, they really wanted to abolish slavery. It was originally in the Declaration of Independence as a grievance against the King. However, they couldn't gain independence and abolish it, because all the southern colonies pitched a b1tch over it.

Plus, all of them owned slaves themselves.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:05:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 10:04:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:59:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
They were also amazingly hypocritical. They fought against British tyranny and then suppressed rebellion against their tyranny once the British fled.

If they didn't this country wouldn't exist in the form it does now.
So rebellion against British tyranny was justified but it was not just to rebel against their tyranny?
You can't allow the government to be ineffective, otherwise people would revolt their way into separate countries,...a continuous division according to each group's qualms, resulting in anarchy.

Anarchy is good :)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:07:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 10:05:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:58:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:56:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:52:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
ike, who cares what the Founders wanted?

We should treat their work just as Garrison did :)

Because the wrote the constitution.
And that has authority to rule over us because . . . .
It's like saying If worded a will badly, someone got money that they shouldn't have due to some loophole, and said "that's what the person wanted" when he/she clearly didn't.
The Founders clearly wanted slavery; they all owned slaves, preserved it in the Constitution, and enacted legislation that promoted it. I couldn't care less about what they wanted.

If you believe the Constitution is valid, then it matters greatly what the people who wrote the document thought. I assume though that you don't see the constitution as valid anyways, so this argument is moot.

So basically it's ancestor worship? :p

(Trolling ;) )
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:07:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 10:04:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 10:02:19 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:58:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:56:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:52:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
ike, who cares what the Founders wanted?

We should treat their work just as Garrison did :)

Because the wrote the constitution.
And that has authority to rule over us because . . . .
It's like saying If worded a will badly, someone got money that they shouldn't have due to some loophole, and said "that's what the person wanted" when he/she clearly didn't.
The Founders clearly wanted slavery; they all owned slaves, preserved it in the Constitution, and enacted legislation that promoted it. I couldn't care less about what they wanted.

Actually, they really wanted to abolish slavery.
Could you show me where? I couldn't find it.

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.


Did you read the rest. It originally WAS in there, but it was struck to appease the southern colonies.

From the original draft: "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither."
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:07:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 10:05:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 10:04:33 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:59:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
They were also amazingly hypocritical. They fought against British tyranny and then suppressed rebellion against their tyranny once the British fled.

If they didn't this country wouldn't exist in the form it does now.
So rebellion against British tyranny was justified but it was not just to rebel against their tyranny?
You can't allow the government to be ineffective, otherwise people would revolt their way into separate countries,...a continuous division according to each group's qualms, resulting in anarchy.

Anarchy is good :)

There is no such thing a justified revolt....there is a successful revolt and unsuccessful revolt. The American revolution can be classified as the former, and the rebellions that resulted afterward will be the latter. simple
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:08:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 10:05:58 AM, darkkermit wrote:
The constitution was amended to remove slavery....

Not by the Founders. The Founders did not want to abolish slavery. Hence, since we only care about what they want, slavery should not have been abolished.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 10:08:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 10:05:16 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 10:02:19 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:58:27 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:56:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/28/2012 9:52:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
ike, who cares what the Founders wanted?

We should treat their work just as Garrison did :)

Because the wrote the constitution.
And that has authority to rule over us because . . . .
It's like saying If worded a will badly, someone got money that they shouldn't have due to some loophole, and said "that's what the person wanted" when he/she clearly didn't.
The Founders clearly wanted slavery; they all owned slaves, preserved it in the Constitution, and enacted legislation that promoted it. I couldn't care less about what they wanted.

Actually, they really wanted to abolish slavery. It was originally in the Declaration of Independence as a grievance against the King. However, they couldn't gain independence and abolish it, because all the southern colonies pitched a b1tch over it.

Plus, all of them owned slaves themselves.

This is true, but Jefferson himself basically said he was going to release his slaves.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus