WTF is wrong with Lone Star College?

Why free the slaves? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Actually, there was debate and desire among many prior to its ratification who desired for the provision to be included in the Constitution, but the concern was that it would not be ratified by enough of the "colonies" if included, and it was "left for another day."

The same as much legislation.

The Supreme Court has done more to modify the meaning than any other institution. Since I consider myself to be a "strict constructionist" as far as its interpretation is concerned, I find it "dangerous" to take the path of interpreting the meaning to fit political agendas and fashionable trends "of the time," because as the saying goes "the shoe is on the other foot soon enough." The Supreme Court can reverse itself in future decisions.

The "problem" with political agendas and trends is that often the majority on any given issue "trends" in a different direction .. the pendulum swinging back in the other direction ... and a course correction is made. Prohibition is an example as a "policy" in this country.

Are you suggesting that POLITICS might have played a role in the conversation between God and the Apostles on Mount Sinai?

Deals may have been cut?

Concessions made?

Issues tabled?

Dont tell Whiny. He thinks the fucking constitution was handed down by God on several stone tablets.

"The Apostles on Mt. Sinai"??

You used to make sense whether I agreed with you or not.

Old Dingus

i thought the constitution was written by men and not by women back then ....or is there a conspiracy cog .....

Read about Abigail Adams. She may not have been a member of the Congress but she certainly had some influence on her husband John. Don't make the mistake of judging the more's of history by today's standards. The question of who was going to vote (who was going to write the laws) was discussed a great deal. Men of course were going to vote. Which men? Rich men? Property owners? White men? You should take some serious note that the Constitution and early documents have no mention of race or color as a qualifier for voting. It had more to do with property, wealth, and freedom. A rich, property owning free black man could vote. That did not mean that there very many or that they could win an election but nothing in the Constitution said that they could not vote.
The much discussed, and mischaracterized, 3/5ths rule was not so much about slavery as it was about enumeration and voting power in the House. The slave owning states wanted to count their slaves as people for enumeration meaning that the south would have an advantage in the House but did not want to admit them as people for voting. Understand that? If they were admitted to be people then they would get the right to vote and how could the end of slavery not be far behind. A compromise (and like many compromises left everyone wanting) was found; slavery would exist for now (it was not codified in the Constitution) but to limit the power of the south inside the House they would only allow that 3/5ths of the total number of slaves would count. Go look at the records, the House was controlled by the southern states for the next four decades. One of the causes of the Civil War was that the south recognized that they would never get their legislative power back as the country grew.
The standards of the day said that men voted, free men. Later some states allowed women and native Americans to vote though many tribes were not considered to be US citizens until the 1920s. States have always had different standards than the federal government. Don't confuse the two.