Since his focus seems to be on slavery, wouldn't an intelligent man say that it WAS a flawed document, but we eventually fixed it?
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".
Last point: If you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, you need to STFU about your opinions about flawed it is, or was, or whatever. It is what it is -- right, wrong, or indifferent, you uphold it as it is without grousing about how "flawed" it is.
Sheesh!
Obama also said it was flawed in that it dealt in ‘negative liberties.’
Fortunately, via Executive Order it can be subverted and destroyed.
Same applies to POTUS and Congress.
But then again, oaths don't mean much anymore.....
Good post!
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!
The founders set up, in article 5 of the Constitution, a means to ‘fix mistakes’, and make necessary changes. Slavery was a flaw in the hearts and minds of those who supported it and practiced it, but the founders left us with a document that provided for righting those wrongs.