Germans, you originally argued:
You then argued:
However, as you've pointed out, there are explicit statements in it which mention (or at least, allude to) slavery. However, these only serve to justify what people can do with slaves. In other words, they do not explicitly state that slavery is legal; they only imply it is.
Plus, nobody is pointing to the original and claiming to have a right to something. The right to bear arms is in the current constitution as well (and ironically, was not in the original). The right to bear arms was an amendment in the first place.
Quote:One might aswell argue for the constitutionaly provided right to own slaves - which YES was included in the original document.It wasn't. There isn't a single right in the original constitution that allows slavery. Mentioning or alluding to something does not mean there is a constitutionally provided right to do it. A constitutionally provided right means that the constitution explicitly states that right, in plain English. In other words, it would say something along the lines of "The right of the people to own slaves shall not be infringed". Substitute the word "slaves" for anything that roughly means the same thing. It doesn't matter, because there are no such phrases in the constitution.
You then argued:
Quote:It explicitly underlined that slavery was not outlawed!No, it didn't. It never explicitly underlined that, but it may have implicitly underlined it. Explicit means "Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt." The original constitution does not do that; it instead uses very ambiguous language and never states clearly that slavery is "not outlawed".
However, as you've pointed out, there are explicit statements in it which mention (or at least, allude to) slavery. However, these only serve to justify what people can do with slaves. In other words, they do not explicitly state that slavery is legal; they only imply it is.
Quote:LOLNo it doesn't. It also isn't a fact that "the constitution needs to be constantly altered". The constitution is not being constantly altered; it's only been altered 27 times, the last time was in 1992.
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.
Plus, nobody is pointing to the original and claiming to have a right to something. The right to bear arms is in the current constitution as well (and ironically, was not in the original). The right to bear arms was an amendment in the first place.
