New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time

[jimbuick]

Southpaw when are you going to prove your point using the text itself?

Never.

 

[ax1]

Never.

He is gonna find another book about some authors historical perspective who also can't prove anything using written law directly from the bill of rights itself.

 

[southpaw23]

He is gonna find another book about some authors historical perspective who also can't prove anything using written law directly from the bill of rights itself.

[h=1]Did the Bill of Rights prohibit slavery? Yes or No? <---nothing else. YES or NO?[/h]

 

[ax1]

Yes because slavery does not coincide with the laws in the bill of rights.

 

[southpaw23]

Yes because slavery does not coincide with the laws in the bill of rights.

And yet slaves were considered property until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. Which occurred when? <---Answer this question ONLY.

While I know you're looking for a blanket answer, where you want me to say that the B.O.R. does not state that blacks were NOT offered equal protections under the law, it's easy to conclude as much when you consider the following; the first ten amendments did nothing to alter any other portions of the Constitution of which PROTECTED slavery.

The bill of rights is merely the collective name for the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. The right to bear arms did not extend to slaves, this is just one such example. So if the Bill of Rights was written with the intent being to uphold rights for ALL (based on the text), that isn't how it was interpreted by its author(s). Your argument is that the Bill of Rights isn't meant to be interpretive, I say that it was meant to be interpretive based on the various sources and scholarly papers written by historians. If you don't like those references because you view them as intellectual pandering, then refer back to Josh's link on the subject versus...."it's not true because I say so, read the text." Did you even bother to read the link that he provided?

 

[ax1]

Considered slaves by man, not the Bill of Rights.

 

[southpaw23]

Considered slaves by man, not the Bill of Rights.

So the document is a demi-god? Men viewed them as slaves, but not the piece of paper? Who wrote the piece of paper, Morpheus? The bill of rights is comprised of the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, they are inherently connected. Because, although, the first 10 amendments do not implicitly imply that blacks did not share equal rights/protection under the law, other articles in the Constitution upheld slavery, in direct contradiction with your interpretation of the first 10 amendments.

 

[carpee]

"the greatest danger to freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution" - southpaws favorite Thomas Jefferson

 

[ax1]

So the document is a demi-god? Men viewed them as slaves, not the piece of paper. Who wrote the piece of paper, Morpheus? The bill of rights is comprised of the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, they are inherently connected.

What's important is written law, kkk could have wrote it, it don't change the law.

 

[Ballesteri]

"the greatest danger to freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution" -

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid don't ignore the Constitution they just interpret it to fit their fancy. Bend, cram, crumple it to fit.

 

[ax1]

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid don't ignore the Constitution they just interpret it to fit their fancy

And their lemming supporters follow their interpretation rather than reading the BORs itself.

 

[Ballesteri]

Yeah the lemmings have been a real problem here in America since the Dems started on about them getting the vote

 

[TexasGuy]

So the document is a demi-god? Men viewed them as slaves, but not the piece of paper? Who wrote the piece of paper, Morpheus? The bill of rights is comprised of the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, they are inherently connected. Because, although, the first 10 amendments do not implicitly imply that blacks did not share equal rights/protection under the law, other articles in the Constitution upheld slavery, in direct contradiction with your interpretation of the first 10 amendments.

No, the document is a charge that men fumbled for decades, looping back to the argument you still choose to side step. Men like Jefferson.