These fascists/statists have no idea what “rule of law” is.
for leftists of all stripes, politics must be involved in everything.
Trump did miss an opportunity when asked about how his nominees would “interpret the constitution”. He should have said “The constitution is written in English, it doesn’t need to be interpreted. It needs to be applied to the law, and I will appoint judges who will apply the constitution as written, not make up new “rights” to fit their political agenda”.
Quite a bit was going on in the world when Shakespeare that Julia Craven of the Huffington Post might not agree with or like.
Would she then conclude that William Shakespeare was not therefore the world’s greatest writer?
The author is an idiot, because the Constitution was set up to provide a way to change the compact to reflect changing interests, and that was the AMENDMENT process! Liberals, however, are incensed that the have to go through that process.
Guessing Ms Craven does not realize that the people who wanted to keep slaves wanted them counted as a full person and those that wanted to free them did not want to count them at all....because the issue was whether to count them in the census toward giving slavery states more power to protect slavery.
Also, the 3/5th compromise was not overturned by judicial activism, but by the 14th Amendment.
Leftists are such arrogant dopes. Its embarrassing that this person is actually paid to be a journalist.
Leftists/Statists were never “cool” with the Constitution.
After all, the Founders would have NEVER wanted us to obligate ourselves to Constitutional amendments as well. /sarc
Yeah, HuffnPuffPost is not the brightest place to go to get Constitutional analysis.
The Constitution was written to end slavery, bit by bit.
As for the faggots... I can’t shrug loud enough
These ridiculous, ignorant people have never heard of the Amendments to the Constitution.
Note: all those links go to (SURPRISE!) other Huff Post articles.
1. Slavery was legal. Black people were enslaved.
2. Enslaved Africans were considered to be three-fifths of a person.
3. Only white people were considered to be people.
4. Only white men who owned property could vote.
5. LGBT couples couldn’t get married.
NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS WAS EVEN ADDRESSED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
1 - Slavery is not in the Con. It is mentioned incidentally due to (2), but nowhere is any mention of race, either. Only “Indians” are mentioned.
2 - Total misconstruction of the meaning. IOW, it was beloved Yankee NORTHERNERS who counted them as “3-5ths”. However, the point was to NOT allow slave-heavy states full representation via their slaves, which SH states wanted to boost their numbers in Congress.
3 - Again, irrelevant. Nothing in the Con about it and thinking everyone actually thought that way doesn’t preclude the OPPOSITE happening.
4 - BS. STATES CHOSE who could vote. Nothing in the Con about who can vote. NJ allowed women, and others allowed other races to vote. Some had property tests, others don’t. “Property”, BTW, often means a single coin!
5 - what? Just what? Irrelevant. Not in the Con. Nothing about marriage in the Con.
“That’s not cool. Here’s what was going on when the Constitution was written in 1787.”
BTW: TRANSLATION:
WE HATE THE $!@#ING FOUNDERS! EEEEVVIILL, THEY WERE! SO WE HATE THE CONSTITUTION! AND THE COUNTRY STAMPED BY IT!!!
That’s what it boils down to.
Once again, “liberals” (communists) showing how much they hate their own country.
GET THE HELL OUT!
If you take anything far enough out of reality/context, it can be made to seem evil - HuffPo has managed to stay in the bottom muck.