Also, the tired old three-fifths things was a moral attempt to minimize political power from slave-holding states. It was a good thing. It was an attempt to move in a direction that might "fix" the "flawed document".
A wiser assessment than Kennedy's. Without the "thinly veiled language" and the "three-fifths rule", there would've been no Constitution, no United States of America. Would Kennedy have preferred that outcome?
Instead, he should be glad he wasn't there -- but Roger Sherman and Charles Pinckney were!
He’s a Monday Morning Constitutional Quarterback who has over 238 years of evidence before him and he calls the wrong plays despite all that. There are too many constitutional law scholars who don’t get the Constitution.