(April 1, 2013 at 8:05 pm)Shell B Wrote: Fucking hell, Germans. It is widely known fact that the writers and signers did not include slavery in particular because they never would have gotten the document ratified if they had. It was never a Constitutionally protected "right" to own slaves. Had it been, Abe Lincoln would have had no recourse to free them or to chastise the south for disobeying the Constitution with secession. Granted, he hung only to a sliver of lawfulness in the beginning, but no one ever seriously argued that there was a Constitutionally protected right to own slaves -- not even southern slave states.
You dont understand a damn word I write!?
It remains a fact that slavery was not outlawed when your constitution was writen!
It explicitly underlined that slavery was not outlawed!
Therefor - if one argues that everything in the original constitution is right and applies for today - one may aswell argue that one has the right to own slaves! or deny women the right to vote! or deny those who dont own property the right to vote!
This entire approach towards modern politics is downright authoritarian - it elevates the constitution onto the level of being some kind of devine always correct piece of paper which cannot be questioned.
While it is a 300 year old piece of paper writen by a bunch of slave owners who looked down on non - landowners and lived in a class sociaty. Some of which died of syphilis.
The american revolution historicaly significant? - sure.
The american constitution writen in it`s original form still a lawgiving document? - no
Politics is about finding solutions to current problems by being anlytic and via proposal - debate - conclusion.
And not about applying modern problems into frames which apply to the standerds of a 200 year old piece of paper.
