New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time
- 01-31-2013, 12:56 PM
- 01-31-2013, 12:59 PM
- 01-31-2013, 01:00 PM
01-31-2013, 01:01 PM
01-31-2013, 01:01 PM
01-31-2013, 01:03 PM
01-31-2013, 01:04 PM
01-31-2013, 01:07 PM
01-31-2013, 01:14 PM
Article 4 is quite clear... 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 Labour may be due.
That left slavery as a matter of states rights and slavery was still set in stone. Also free states no longer held the right to harbor fugitive slaves. If only the slaves of the day had a Captain Crunch secret decoder ring, they would have realized they were free all along and could just walk away from their slave masters some 70 years before waiting on the Emancipation Declaration or the even the 13th Amendment.
01-31-2013, 01:27 PM
The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to Native Americans or to the Africans imported to labor as slaves in the South. Moreover, Congress and the Supreme Court often sanctioned pervasive inequalities. Per the following; In 1830, Congress approved the Indian Removal Act, which authorized the relocation of Native Americans west of the Mississippi River. And the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed at the end of the Civil War, excluded Native Americans even as it ostensibly extended citizenship and "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings" to all people.
The Bill of Rights did not apply to the slaves, who were totally excluded from citizenship and all rights attending it. When the slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was incorporated into the Bill of Rights to prohibit states from denying the vote, due process or equal protection of the laws on the basis of race. Which we know was not the case, following the Reconstruction period, which provided a brief respite for African Americans from systematic persecution, enactment of the "Black Codes" and "Jim Crow" laws, returning blacks to a status of mere nominal freedom. (So yes, the Bill of Rights completely set them free)
Women, too, were largely excluded from the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. Although the first American Women's Rights Convention, meeting in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848, demanded women's suffrage, 70 more years would pass before that demand would be met. Indeed, in 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the "law of the creator" required women to be wives and mothers not professionals because of their "natural and proper timidity and delicacy." In 1879, the Court reaffirmed state suffrage laws that disfranchised women.
Now does it implicitly state in the B.O.R. that blacks are free? No, it did not. If they were free, why did it take 70 years per the Emancipation Declaration. My point is (and it will be lost here I already know that) is that the B.O.R. did not offer blanket protections, period.Even if you require literal wording as evidence of such.
01-31-2013, 01:28 PM
You are going off topic because you know you are wrong. You don't have an answer because the Bill of Rights does not endorse slavery. You can't show me where it does because it doesn't.
We can talk about Jefferson and others in power limiting the reach of the Bill of Rights to certain people if you want but it will only further show that Jefferson isn't the source the Bill of Rights is when using historical references to shape modern arguments.
The Bill of Rights, however, is a self-contained piece of literature with very explicit charges. Show me where it propagates slavery.
Unfortunately, America had to wait until Lincoln came around and used Jefferson's previous office to extend the content of the same Bill of Rights to all, and that tradition continues today. The Bill of Rights is still the Bill of Rights, however, and was even when the "powers that be (were)" failed to communicate it properly.
And it doesn't support slavery, the basis of the contention here. You are wrong. Get over it. You can tie as many unrelated facts about period figures to the document as you want, the document is still a self contained piece of literature with very specific charges, none of which support your slavery angle.
And it turns out you do dance, and you aren't too shabby either!
01-31-2013, 01:34 PM
Right, "Jefferson did not allow the Bill of Rights to extend to all people." But you won't list sources supporting those contentions and HAVE FAILED TO DO SO THIS ENTIRE THREAD. So while I may in fact end up on Dancing With the Stars, it appears your next star turning performance will come in Captain Simple Jack II: The Return of Captain Simple Jack. Now smiley are faces are cute...for a fetus.When you're done with that, try listing some valid sources to support your argument.
01-31-2013, 01:36 PM
Show me where the Bill of Rights supports slavery. I don't care about the Indian Removal Act or any other bull**** unrelated to the actual argument.
01-31-2013, 01:39 PM
I'm talking about the Bill of Rights. When taken as written the Bill of Rights applied to everyone, even in the 1800's. Just because they didn't heed the words, AS WRITTEN, doesn't mean they aren't written in a way that would apply to black/native Americans/anyone else.
The 2nd amendement (or any in the B.O.R really) do not exclude anyone. No where in the Bill of Rights (not an obscure article from a completely separate document) does it make a distinction for which races or creeds the laws apply to.
01-31-2013, 01:42 PM
01-31-2013, 01:48 PM
01-31-2013, 01:50 PM
01-31-2013, 01:52 PM
Check them first ten and show me where they exclude any minority.
01-31-2013, 01:52 PM
01-31-2013, 01:53 PM
01-31-2013, 01:54 PM
01-31-2013, 01:55 PM
The real argument was still the Bill of Rights upholding slavery vs. Jefferson upholding slavery, however. I suppose I could post the entire Bill of Rights to show that it does not, in fact, uphold slavery but that would be pretty silly for such a well versed dancing queen as yourself.
Regarding fetal humor, you were the first to introduce smileys to the conversation, Simple Jack.
Edit: Looks like Jim did link the Bill of Rights. Read them and show me where they support slavery.
01-31-2013, 01:58 PM
01-31-2013, 02:00 PM
01-31-2013, 02:02 PM
01-31-2013, 02:03 PM
So what's your point again, originally you argued that they exclude certain minorities when in fact it was the people applying them who were excluding minorities and not the B.O.R.
Which was my point all along.
Now if only you could admit you were wrong without trying to act like you were right the whole time.
01-31-2013, 02:03 PM
Get off it. You are looking not only dumb but desperate to prove yourself to people on an internet forum who already think you look dumb to begin with.
When you are wrong you are wrong. The Bill of Rights does not support slavery, Jefferson did, and in the matter of political opinion that kicked this whole thing off, between the two sources, the Bill of Rights will carry much heavier reference weight than a wealthy, slave owning guy leveraging government power to expand the institution of slavery.
You're going from a misguided, stubborn guy defending a poor choice of historical reference to a downright head-in-ass full on retard the longer you go.
01-31-2013, 02:06 PM
01-31-2013, 02:12 PM
We aren't discussing their ethics or integrity, we are discussing the Bill of Rights itself in relation to slavery vs. Jefferson in relation to slavery. For the 100th time. And I'm not interested in adding yet another semantical tangent to your tangled web of bull****.
The discussion is about the Bill of Rights itself upholding slavery vs. Thomas Jefferson upholding slavery for the 101st time.
You're off. Come off it.
01-31-2013, 02:12 PM
01-31-2013, 02:14 PM
01-31-2013, 02:15 PM
Show me where the Bill of Rights supports slavery, in the Bill of Rights itself. When you do can discredit everything I've said. Until then, you are a ****ing idiot for holding out on an empty argument and you know it.
01-31-2013, 02:19 PM
01-31-2013, 02:21 PM
The Bill of Rights is a charge, and is what Jim was referencing. He was not referencing the failure of Jefferson and company to apply it as it was written, for the 102nd time.
It is an inanimate object, relying on people to carry its charges out as written. They did not, which is the problem with your argument and attempt to uphold Jefferson.
Keep it up! You could use the practice, big star.
01-31-2013, 02:29 PM
01-31-2013, 02:35 PM
01-31-2013, 02:36 PM
I've covered typos with you, it's cool though, that's all you have and I understand.
On topic though, you're wrong, and the perception you are building for yourself is simply there for you to acknowledge or not. It's going to be your reputation around the boards though, so if you want to be perceived as an illogical, off base dip****, bent on ramming off topic points in to conversations and nitpicking the low hanging typo fruits on a casual forum, then by all means, continue on.
You are being a clown though, and will be respected as such. It appears this is already the case for many. You started out decently interesting and seemingly well versed enough for conversation but unless it's a slow day in general and around the site, I can tell you that you are only worth a cheap thrill after this roller coaster of a conversation that is still looping around the actual point of contention.
And please let me know if you do make it to Dancing With the Stars. Not my cup of tea generally but I would love the cheap thrill of watching you literally dance too. I'm sure it will be fabulous.
01-31-2013, 02:37 PM
01-31-2013, 02:38 PM
01-31-2013, 02:44 PM