It is unconstitutional to not return slaves to their owners

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Yurt, Apr 25, 2009.

  1. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned

    ..

    Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

    http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secess...onslavery.html

    the main argument regarding torture is that it is unconstitutional and bush should be tried....i don't believe such a blind following of the constitution is a good thing for this country, the constitution is not a suicide pact. so those that say we cannot torture at all because of treaties which are the supreme law of the land vis a vis the constitution....would you also be good little citizens and return slaves to their rightful owners....

    of course the 13th has done away that....still....you are arguing that you would not violate the constitution for to do so harms this country and makes the constitution worthless....so, you would all of course be good little citizens and return slaves, worth only 3/5 of a white person, to their rightful owners.
     
  2. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Your reasoning is as flawed as that of Bybee and Yoo. Unless you're attempting reductio ad absurdium to prove that torture IS unconstitutional. And since no one is actually challenging the constitutionality of Title 18, Chapter 113C of the US Code, your argument is irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2009
  3. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    The constituion recognized that slavery existed. That had to be done if the Union was to be become a reality, and it was the best they could do at the time. Reducing the recognition of slaves for apportionment reasons was a way of limiting the weight of the vote in the Southern states where slavery was an institution. To not do so would mean that by propogating a growing slave population the Southern states would've benefited with more congressional districts in congress, while an ever larger proportion of the population would not have shared in that representation.

    Clearly, America was born with a congenital birth defect similar in some ways to conjoined infant twins sharing the same vital organs physically and psychically. That defect was slavery. There was a “Faustian Bargain”, a deal with the 'devil' made to ‘yank this defective infant' from the 'womb' of history. The reparative surgery would have to come later, and it did; eighty four years later the crisis came to a “head” and it was resolved as all great unresolved issues must be.

    It's easy to understand their greater purpose. It's also easy to turn the whole affair around, despoiling it. I just wonder if they were aware how in the future they would by some be seen more aligned with the devil than with the angels. I would guess they foresaw that too.....

    .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2009
  4. tigerbob
    Offline

    tigerbob Increasingly jaded.

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,225
    Thanks Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +972
    I have a shorter answer. Who gives a fuck?
     
  5. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    I like short answers. And I don't care much about any comparison with torture, which doesn't apply, which is why I ignored that aspect. But I do care about the intent in the constituiion of that old canard of 3/5th citizenship of slaves.

    .
     
  6. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    so torture is really a non constitutional issue....shouldn't even mention the constitution....

    i mean, who gives a fuck about the constitution
     
  7. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    answer the question:

    would you have returned the slaves or would you have pissed on the constitution by not returning the slaves?

    simple really
     
  8. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    so, it was ok, you agree that the returning slaves was the right thing to do....you would have returned slaves to their owner because you would not violate the constitution....
     
  9. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    Sorry Yurt, I can't buy either of these assumptions. I have to agree with you and would have been in conflict with the constitution by not returning slaves as property to their owners. I believe the terrorists we have captured lie outside our constituion since they are not US citizens, and outside the geneva conventions of war because they are terrorists and do not conduct themselves as uniformed soldiers, do not follow the rules of the conventions with regard to civilians, and are unlawful combatants. I furthermore do not believe they were tortured, but once in our legal system and granted that status, they would be protected from cruel and unusual punishment within our legal system. They should be tried in military tribunals, and it's a mistake to handle them in any other way.
     
  10. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    we signed onto the UN charter/treaty against torture....it is not bilateral... the geneva convention has little or nothing to do with the current torture issue

    seriously, look it up

    my point with this thread is to show the hypocrisy of the left when the scream about the torture, regardless if that torture saved one life, because torture violates that treaty, which indirectly violates the constitution as treaties are the supreme law of the land.

    then the left or those who are against torture solely based on the constitution must also admit they would return slaves to their rightful owner.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2009

Share This Page