Firearms

[Something completely different]

It wasn't. There isn't a single right in the original constitution that allows slavery.

I posted the link to the phrases which do. A euphemism does not change the substance of the matter. What kind of world would this be if a euphemism itself could change the very nature of the subject described? The term "final solution" as it is writen on Eichmans calculations doesnt make the systematic murder of 6 million people prittier in any way.
The founding fathers may have used a euphemism, yet it is clear that they meant slavery with it, to somehow fantasise arround the idea that they could have meant something else is outright historic relatevism which eludes away from the fact that the US founding fathers eighter saw the issue of slavery as a matter as insignificant as the buisness releationship between a landlord and his servant or that they were cowards who didnt dare to speak and write of the matter as it was to be seen. To have a euphemism in a historic document and to then read it and understand it just like it was meant to be read by the writer is wrong. One has to read it whilest keeping in mind why a euphemism was used, and in this case it only leaves the two options I noted above.

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.

The constitution gives it`s subjects the right to own property. The constitution is also writen in a way which regards slaves to be nothing alse but property - so the constitution does give the right to own slaves. In a 18th century mind set in which a slave was nothing else but property it is as unnececery to meantion the right to own slaves as it is to mention the right to own a house or tea cup. The only reason why slavery is mentioned in this document in it`s euphemistic way is because of the "Summerset case and Knight case" which took place shortly before in the British mainland and ended with the abolishment of slavery in England and Scotland. Yet the notes on slavery in the constitution only assures to the subjects living under it that slavery will not be abolished and that a slave holder need not fear that a fleeing slave will not be returned, let alone that a escaping slave has some kind of right to claim liberty.

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.

o really?

"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 . . ."

this is a legal guarantee that a "runaway slave" has to be returned to it`s owner because the slave is the owners property. that phrase is only possible if the owners right to his slave is already accepted as a unchangeable fact. Thereby the quoted phrase clearly guarantees a slave holders right to his slave.

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".

It does, as the phrase quoted above shows. And not only that one, but also the phrase previously quoted which underlines that the matter shouldnt stand for debate until 1808. To argue that the wishy washy phrasing somehow changes the real life consequences of the matter is absurd. What matters is how it was seen then, how it was interpreted then and why it should not be forgotten.

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.

To list what people can do with slaves is pritty much useless if slavery was illegal.
No code of law in any country of the world guarantees the right to own a computer - but every code of law includes regulations and laws on internet criminality. You are simply viewing the document whilest thinking that slavery would somehow be so special that it deserved being mentioned itself. Slaves where seen as simple property and not as we see them today. By giving regulations on what can be done with slaves the document and it`s writers act upon the fact that slavery is something acceptable.

No 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.

"only"??????

this does not change the fact that it was changed, you are also relatevising the changes made with your possition as if they were unnececery or dont change the fact that the original is sacrosanct and perfect.

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.

which took place within the same 15 years in which all these documents were published.

it does not change the fact: An argument based on an historic promiss or right cannot justify modern policies.

---

I post the smiley next to the insult because it makes you even angrier.

Well what a nice thing to do. Dont you have better things to dou with your life?

Your posts are riddled with strawmen,

where?

irrelevant points,

where?

word usage problems

where?

and logic fails

where?

that are on par with the Christians we get around here.

can you show how this comparision proves to be right in any way?

You not liking me or being a douche with anger management problems has fuckall to do with the merit of my posts.

this has absolutly nothing to do with not liking.
the only ways to have a debate is by eighter being agressive or civil

you chose agressive, now deal with the blitzkrieg or learn for later.

If you can ever find it in yourself to have a discussion that isn't Mickey Moused together between your characteristic outbursts, let me know.

You started with your own outburst.

Until then, I will continue to talk to you as I do now, as I may as well be amused by your ineptitude whilst wasting my time talking to you.

Interesting how you start with an outburst (just like last time) and then think you somehow have the highground which allows you to tell other that they have agression problems.

You dont know me! You never will know me! You will therefor never be capable of making any kind of judgement about my personality in any kind of way. You post about your problems - I dont - I dont use those post to somehow make a slimish disgusting disfranchising remark about your personality, thereby hoping to exclude you from making a argument, in a godwin way. And even although I might sometimes slip and make some pritty drastic personal remarks on the grounds of what others may post, I dont resort to only using such remarks.
You on the other hand seem to be incapable to have any kind of exchange with anyone without resorting to such remarks.

Now go run off and cry about how much of an annoying meany face I am.

lol, unlike you I can keep posting until you realise yourself how pathetic your own remarks are, just like last time.