Replies

doesnt mean you throw out what the founders thought was important.

Actually, what the founders thought was crap. Especially that 3/5 person nonsense. And as to NBC, they couldn't have been more unclear and vague. The 14th Amendment tried (and failed) to clarify citizenship.

So it's been up to the courts to determine who is eligible. And only a moron believes Kamala, Nikki, Vivek, etc. are ineligible. Only a moron believes Obammy really wasn't president.

“Actually, what the founders thought was crap. Especially that 3/5 person nonsense.”

The latter language was arrived at via compromise via negotiation.

And that was a good thing, not crap. For multiple reasons.

You should be more mature in your thought processes.

Especially that 3/5 person nonsense

I'm no scholar, so I may be way off. At the risk of red-hot flaming, here's how I've always seen the 3/5 compromise:

While the 3/5 compromise does deal in racism, I think it's origins and original intent have been obscured. Slaves were slaves and could not vote at the time. However, the slave-holding states wanted their population fully counted so that they could have more representatives (and electoral votes) in Congress. They were adding up slaves who had no voice and using it to hold more seats in Congress to fight to PRESERVE slavery.

Those who wanted to abolish slavery felt that if a person could not vote (i.e. a slave), then that person should not be "counted" towards the total population of the state. The effect of this would be to lessen the overall power that the slave-states held.

The 3/5 compromise was not meant to say that any human being was worth less than another. It was saying that the representation granted to states who treated human beings as less should be decreased. Had the abolitionists had their way it would have be a 0/5ths compromise. The subsequent reduction in representation would increase the pressure on slave-states to abolish.