Posted on 06/28/2022 6:10:13 AM PDT by artichokegrower
Last week, the Supreme Court eviscerated a woman’s right to abortion, undermined Miranda rights, expanded gun rights and allowed border patrol agents to operate with even further impunity. Today, it ruled that a former Washington state high school football coach can pray on the field immediately after games—regardless of the religious backgrounds of the students.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
It would make much more sense to judge the wo slave owners by the way they treated their slaves.
Jefferson certainly treated his well. I have seen no information that Madison mistreated his.
People need to realize that once slavery became a factor in agriculture, many other large land owners were forced into it, just as today many have been forced into the choice of manufacturing in China or giving up their business.
So what? These were great, if flawed men (like all men) that helped create the greatest government and country the world has even known.
Of course coming from the Root who idolizes someone like G Floyd I would expect nothing less.
Like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
An intentionally misleading association. The writer is attempting to discredit the Constitution. Obviously the Constitution is in the way of something he/she/it/they want to do to us.
By their logic, gee, their ancestors no-doubt owned slaves, why should anyone listen to what they have to say? They were obviously raised and influenced by a long line of racists.
See how that works? You can falsely (or maybe not in their case, who knows?) impugn anyone's integrity if you have non yourself.
Stopped reading right there. Knew the rest was a lie.
"Journalist" needs to be called out as to where exactly it says in the Constitution a woman has a right to an abortion.
He won't, of course because: The Root.
It's a clean way to get rid of the federal government.
The trick would be to bar the people in it, from ever having a position of control or authority.
She will. We won’t.
The constitution could only be ratified with support of slave owners (mostly in the southernmost colonies ((Mason Dixon line)) where slave labor was pervasive and common)
There would be no country if deference was not paid to this large constituency.
Thus, the framers created the Bill of Rights, and the constitutional means to eventually amend the constitution and end slavery. Candice’s “slave owners” wanted it gone from the start.
Further, southern slave states wanted census credit and dominant representation in congress with inclusion of slaves in the census. Northern states protested , knowing southern slave owners and large populations would call all the shots, so that’s where the “3/5th” of a person meme originated. Slave owners were allowed 3/5ths of slaves to be included in census diluting southern influence.
Two places. The clause that allows congress to abolish the slave trade after 1808, and Article IV, Section 2 which deals with fugitive slaves.
But they don't use the word "slave", but they are clearly talking about slaves.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, was not founded by slave owners.
According to her own logic, the author should be advocating in favor of Republicans and against Democrats.
No Constitution for you, Candace.
Where’s the bone?
There were no Democrats in 1787. They didn't exist until 1828 or so when Andrew Jackson created the party. The importation of slaves was not made illegal until 1808, so quite a few years after the constitution was written.
Thirdly, all the states were slave states, so they had to "compromise" with their own people in each and every state.
Is there something about Amendment XIII that they don’t like? How about free speech and representative government?
If you want to spin it that way...
OK...
Our founding fathers were wanted men in good ol’ england.
Our constitution was written by criminals....
These people are terminally stupid
Oh, and don’t forget...
Math is racist
Except that didn't happen. The Constitution was never amended to end slavery. No one even attempted to amend the constitution to end slavery.
After beating the Southern states, puppet governments put into place by the Union army "ratified" an amendment, but this should not be regarded as a valid constitutional amendment because the process was never meant to utilize federal troops forcing a state to vote the way Washington DC ordered them to vote.
Without guns aimed at backs, the 13th amendment would never have passed.
“ Get rid of the Constitution? OK no 1st Amendment for you so STFU! ”
No second amendment either. Now, if you wouldn’t mind standing against that wall over there. I know the plaster is white, but this won’t take long….
Well, if the purity of the author is the only significant consideration for validity, then I guess this person is advocating for a rigid Old Testament theocracy?
and the Democrats own her she just doesn’t know it
I’m OK with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.