Where is that slavery clause again?
It should be added for idiots like Obama, but he’s not smart enough to pick cotton.
It's next to the Abortion codicle and the "separation of church and state" phrase.
“Where is that slavery clause again?”
The bill of rights apparently, otherwise the argument is pathetic and juvenile.
It wasn’t added until the 16th Amendment where the government effectively said that it owned 100% of your income.
Right after the "muskets" clause...
.
Well, according to the Dred Scott decision the northern states had to give back runaway slaves because freeing them would be an unconstitutional taking of private property ala the Fourth Amendment. One of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history that was a major cause of the civil war, but for a time it was considered a constitutional right.
Where is that slavery clause again?Well, it is addressed in several places. The framers were pressured to include some things about in order to get the slave states to sign on.
So there's these clauses in the constitution:
Article-I, Section-2 = Slaves counted as 3/5 of a person
Article-I, Section-9 clause 1 = Can't prohibit slavery until 1808
Article-IV, Section-2 = Escaped slaves must be returned upon demand
Article-V = Bars adding a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
Finally, there's the 13th amendment that freed slaves.
Someone should have shouted to the Fitz-Grant, "Hey jackass! The Constitution also *FREED* slaves. But if your are serious and don't like the 2nd Amend., there is a process to change it if you got the guts to try - or are you just talking out your @$$ ??!!"
Hollywood writers have never read it. And I love the fake president’s whine about “one child to die” by a gun but these libtards don’t mind aborting it.
I hate libs. I deeply hate them.
“Where is that slavery clause again?”
Right after the gay marriage clause. :-)
“Where is that slavery clause again?”
The Enumeration Clause [Article 1, section 2] does mention that those “bound to service” count as 3/5 of a person.
Article 1 section 9 specifies that laws against the importation of “such persons” cannot be enacted.
Article 4, section 2 specifies that no “person held in service” can escape to another state [Fugitive Slave Clause].
Then, three generations later, a bloody civil war was fought and the result was three Constitutional Amendments were enacted abolishing slavery, guaranteeing citizenship and the right to vote regardless of race, but not sex. [Women were granted suffrage just after WW1.]
Hence slavery was originally part of the Constitution, but was overturned by Amendment.
The right to keep and bear arms was not part of the original Constitution [because the Founding Fathers considered it to be tacitly understood], but was enacted as the 2nd Amendment and has not been overturned since. If the Left wants to take away our 2nd Amendment rights, they are going to have to draft and submit an Amendment doing so and have it passed by Congress and the States. Wanting of that, it is still the Law of the Land.
Finally, the idea that there is a comparison between slavery and the right to keep and bear arms is absurd — and the implication is offensive. Who’s rights are curbed by law-abiding citizens being armed other than criminals and an oppressive government?
We have seen whose side the Left is on in these matters.
>>>Where is that slavery clause again?<<<
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3
It says ‘all other persons”, not Slaves. he great Compromise. Liberals cannot read or comprehend, period.