Kerostasis

Tangential side note -- I've seen a lot of people take offense at the "3/5ths of a person" math in the Constitution without considering the context. Keep in mind that this phrase was in the middle of a section talking about how voting power was assigned. Remember also that the slaves weren't allowed to vote at all, so the "3/5ths" is effectively the number of extra votes that slave owners were entitled to by virtue of owning someone else. Own 1 slave and you cast 1.6 votes. Own 10 slaves and you get to cast 7 votes. But either way the slaves themselves dont get any votes at all.

In this context, it makes sense that supporters of slave's rights were actually for reducing the number of votes they counted for, while the supporters of slave-ownership wanted the slaves to count for as many votes as possible. The abolitionists would have preferred if people didnt count for votes at all unless they were free. In this light, the 3/5ths compromise looks a little different, doesn't it?

__________________

Delta*RandyShugart*

nope, not in my mind, slavery is wrong on all accounts. But that is my personal belief. I also feel the constitution should be updated/clarified.....but thats another discussion. Maybe I'll post a thread about it sometime in the future.

__________________

Kerostasis

Bwa? What meaning did you get out of my post, and how did you get it? I'm pretty certain I didn't put anything about slavery being "not wrong" in that post.

I was talking about the alleged de-humanization of blacks by the 3/5ths compromise, and asserting that what that passage really does is merely limit the amount of political power that can be stolen from them by the people who had already committed the real de-humanizing act of enslaving them. The constitution is not pro-slavery by any stretch of the imagination.


You are aware we have something called "Amendments to the Constitution", right? The Constitution has been updated / clarified 27 times already. (Online Constitution at Cornell)

__________________

CingularDuality

Close, but slaveowners only got one vote. The 3/5ths was mostly to determine population for the purposes of voting for Congressmen in the House of Representatives.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Kerostasis

Its an approximation. I know each voter still only got 1 vote, but the votes of (free) citizens in heavy-slave-owning states counted proportionately more than the votes of citizens of states without large slave populations, because of the extra federal voting power assigned due to the slaves.

__________________

Sara

This is exactly what it meant..This was a 3/5th compromise proposed by the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton. They only made the 3/5ths compromise because that new people coming into the country were all for Thomas Jefferson's DemocraticRepublicans. So he proposed a law that said 3/5ths of the slave's can vote.

__________________
Me - I'll Just blame bush.
Disciple - Bush? Is that some sort of slang for women? - Hahaha I love disciple.

btw Bush = worst president ever.

Delta*RandyShugart*

gotcha, no worries.....i knew the constitution had been updated/clarified, but it was nice to read exactly what was updated/clarified.....

I know i might be walking on thin ice, but does anyone else think that the right to bear arms amendment should be updated? I dont mind people owning shotguns, rifles, pistols, but does one really need an automatic rifle for personal use other than gunshows/re-creations.....but thats just me, and belongs in another topic which will probably be extremely heated etc...

__________________

Kerostasis

There's a real short answer to that: You need a 3/4 majority to add a new Amendment to the Constitution, and getting a 3/4 majority to support limiting our gun rights is never going to happen. 51% maybe, but that only gets you a law, not an amendment.

With that in mind, if you want to express the opinion that we should amend our right to bear arms, go right ahead. I won't feel threatened until it starts passing state legislatures.

__________________

Delta*RandyShugart*

Ha, don't worry even if it was a Law I can't see the "Country of Texas" abiding by it....if you aren't from Texas my apologies....Yea the gun issue is a dead issue, now if only they could do something worthwhile with the oxymoron of "welfare reform" that in most cases is a waste of money.....but thats IMHO.

3/4's huh? well if the devil somehow elect Hellarly clinton then that would be thrown out the window because Anarchy would ensue...or at least I would lead the anarchist movement, but she's turned into the Ralph Nader of the Dem. Party and I she doesn't have a prayer in the world. There is a God.

__________________

TurkishDelight

For some reason people think that "Texas" is the most gun friendly state in our nation. It's not, and is actually for from it some ways. Plus, they don't even have legal open carry.

Just wanted to point that out

__________________
|TG-X|Turkish

Delta*RandyShugart*

as noted in the article "just tell the cop you are walking to your car" in regards to the question if you are stopped by a police officer and do not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2007-1...n-will-travel/

__________________

CingularDuality

Yeah, but Vermont is so far away...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

War.mongeR1

Yup. That works for me. I don't have my CHL (planning on it though), but travel across the state for work every week. Since Texas decided to extend our gun rights here, I always travel with an accessible loaded handgun in the car (BTW, I don't have kids or ever really carry anyone). I also always sleep with a gun on my nightstand at the hotel. I'm not paranoid, but I often stay in places with some shady characters at the same roach motel. When I checked into my first room on Monday this week, the U-bolt on the door was broken in half, as in recent forced entry. I told the management and they promptly gave me a new room and fixed the lock on the other room. Still, after my brother got mugged in his hotel room (in Washington D.C. though) last summer, I'm not gonna mess around. In fact, this weekend I'm gonna be shopping for a new Springfield XD-45 ACP or 357.

__________________
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

TurkishDelight

I used to like the springfields, but I am a Glock and 1911 convert. I simply shoot the G19 so well

Yes, CD, Vermont is so far away

__________________
|TG-X|Turkish

ScratchMonkey

Even farther from California. And I've got a good job here. (Gotta figure out how to get the bosses to move the company to Vermont. But we just got the building dialed in with machine shop and office reconstruction.)

__________________