Firearms

[Something completely different]

It does not explicitly underline anything. I think you misunderstand what the word explicitly means, as explicit is precisely what they were not about slavery.

I wrote:

It explicitly underlined that slavery was not outlawed!

and unlike you, who thinks she can weasle out by playing the grammer gestapo, I can prove that the constitution explicitly does not outlaw slavery:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. It states:
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. . ."

not only that, I can also prove that the constitution does not take messures which deem it legal to take action against slavery by making it illegal to free a slave or to not return a free slave to his previous owner:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due . . .

source: http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/ps/10199.html

Furthermore, the Constitution does not outlaw rape.

Are you serious?! You want to go down that road?!

The constitution also doesnt mention picking your nose, biting fingernails or fucking donkeys.

What the constitution does mention is that slavery is not to be made illegal until 1808 and it does not even take messures condeming it but rather messures preserving it, as I had pointed out with given examples which you chose to ignore and which I shall post again so you dont have an excuse:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. It states:
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. . ."

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due . . .

source: http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/ps/10199.html

That does not make it a Constitutionally protected right.

No, because it is not mentioned! Unlike slavery!

No one would argue that slavery was illegal during the time the Constitution was penned, but it is a widely known and accepted fact that the drafters were specifically not explicit so as to streamline ratification.

And therefor, if one argues to have a right to whatever was given in the original document - one may aswell claim a right to every single thing granted in the original document.

The verbiage was specifically ambiguous and could easily refer to indentured servants and that was done purposefully. They knew what they were doing in purposefully not mentioning it.

They did mention it.

what intentions might have been behind them mentioning it is irrelevant.

Slavery is neither outlawed nor made a Constitutional right in the Constitution, which is what you said.

It is not oulawed and it is made clear that outlawing it is not an option - therefor one can say that the original document gives the right to own slaves, or at least the right to have slavery not abolished.

The Constitution is not a list of things that are illegal, so it would be outright stupid to list all of the things that are allowed.

correct, which is why it was mentioned as being not illegal.

You said that the Constitution explicitly upheld slavery. My only point is that you are incorrect on that point.

You said that the Constitution explicitly upheld slavery. My only point is that you are incorrect on that point.

And my point is - that I am not incorrect - and that I can prove it by quoting your constitution - which you ignore.

All of your other points are just additional gobbledygook. It can be dispensed of in further posts.

I only made one point. And even if I did make further points, on the basis of which arguments can you show me that they are irrelevant?

---

No it doesn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Fiv...nstitution

LOL

the fact that the constitution needs to be constantly altered and mentios that itself simply proves my point that by pointing to the original document and claiming to have a right to something because it is mentioned in the original is wrong.