Steele Attacks Kagan For Citing Thurgood Marshall's Criticism Of Slavery

[Modbert]

Steele Attacks Kagan For Citing Thurgood Marshall's Criticism Of Slavery | TPMDC

Earlier today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele released a statement about Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, criticizing the solicitor general for "her support for statements suggesting that the Constitution "as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective.'"

Just one problem -- Kagan was writing about comments made by Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. And Marshall was referring to slavery.

Kagan wrote this about Marshall in a 1993 law review article:

Marshall's speech gave particular note to the constitution's original definition of a slave as counting for only three-fifths of a person. Kagan wrote in her piece that "it was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government."

So Marshall critiques the Constitution for its treatment of slaves. Kagan cites the critique and praises the Court for fixing the problem. Steele slams Kagan. Nice.

Oh Steele.

 

[Avatar4321]

And Steele would be correct. The Constitution was not flawed. The Founders realized that they couldn't get rid of Slavery at that moment in time so they severely limited it's practice and handicapped the slave states in the Consitution so that it could be ended later down the line.

Unfortunately, instead of doing the wise thing to end slavery they went to war over it.

 

[Modbert]

And Steele would be correct. The Constitution was not flawed. The Founders realized that they couldn't get rid of Slavery at that moment in time so they severely limited it's practice and handicapped the slave states in the Consitution so that it could be ended later down the line.

Unfortunately, instead of doing the wise thing to end slavery they went to war over it.

Get off your knees there Avatar, the founders got plenty of that in their lifetime. The Constitution was flawed. It wasn't just the 3/5 part that was wrong either.

 

[WillowTree]

You go Michael Steele.

Kagen wrote her thesis on socialism..

 

[blu]

You go Michael Steele.

Kagen wrote her thesis on socialism..

what does her thesis have to do with this thread?

 

[blu]

why hasn't steele been booted yet

 

[rdean]

why hasn't steele been booted yet

He is doing what the Republican Party wants.

A black man defending slavery.

Look how many poor people they get to defend tax breaks for the rich and sending American jobs overseas.

They are masters at screwing their base. And the base LIKES IT!

 

[Murf76]

The three-fifths rule empowered the Northern States. Remember... population allows more representation. The Southern States would have had a representative advantage if slaves had been fully counted.

It's true that the founders 'kicked the can down the road', and the price for that was blood.
But it's also true that the U.S. Constitution has a built-in method of repairing problems through the amendment process.

 

[QUENTIN]

And Steele would be correct. The Constitution was not flawed. The Founders realized that they couldn't get rid of Slavery at that moment in time so they severely limited it's practice and handicapped the slave states in the Consitution so that it could be ended later down the line.

Unfortunately, instead of doing the wise thing to end slavery they went to war over it.

Hahaha. Jesus. You just defended slavery as the right thing to do at the time.

There are no words.

 

[Luissa]

You go Michael Steele.

Kagen wrote her thesis on socialism..

So?

 

[Luissa]

And Steele would be correct. The Constitution was not flawed. The Founders realized that they couldn't get rid of Slavery at that moment in time so they severely limited it's practice and handicapped the slave states in the Consitution so that it could be ended later down the line.

Unfortunately, instead of doing the wise thing to end slavery they went to war over it.

Get off your knees there Avatar, the founders got plenty of that in their lifetime. The Constitution was flawed. It wasn't just the 3/5 part that was wrong either.

I think the whole amendment thing, screams the founding father's knew the constitution would need to change with the times.

 

[Murf76]

And Steele would be correct. The Constitution was not flawed. The Founders realized that they couldn't get rid of Slavery at that moment in time so they severely limited it's practice and handicapped the slave states in the Consitution so that it could be ended later down the line.

Unfortunately, instead of doing the wise thing to end slavery they went to war over it.

Hahaha. Jesus. You just defended slavery as the right thing to do at the time.

There are no words.

You would have preferred that the union not be formed at all?

 

[VaYank5150]

And Steele would be correct. The Constitution was not flawed. The Founders realized that they couldn't get rid of Slavery at that moment in time so they severely limited it's practice and handicapped the slave states in the Consitution so that it could be ended later down the line.

Unfortunately, instead of doing the wise thing to end slavery they went to war over it.

Hahaha. Jesus. You just defended slavery as the right thing to do at the time.

There are no words.

You would have preferred that the union not be formed at all?

Are you surmising that without the 3/5 representation, there would never have been a union????

 

[bodecea]

The three-fifths rule empowered the Northern States. Remember... population allows more representation. The Southern States would have had a representative advantage if slaves had been fully counted.

It's true that the founders 'kicked the can down the road', and the price for that was blood.
But it's also true that the U.S. Constitution has a built-in method of repairing problems through the amendment process.

Wow...a prime example of Double Speak. Giving Southern Slaveholders the right to count slaves (property) as representation empowered the North?????

 

[jillian]

why hasn't steele been booted yet

cause they're afraid they'll look racist if they fire his butt...

 

[Stephanie]

why hasn't steele been booted yet

cause they're afraid they'll look racist if they fire his butt...

wow jilly, even for you.
of course the Democrat-Progressive party doesn't have a problem kicking their colored folks to the curb if they don't conform to the party line, now do they.

 

[jillian]

why hasn't steele been booted yet

cause they're afraid they'll look racist if they fire his butt...

wow jilly, even for you.

anyone else would have been fired for wasting the GOP's money and the stupid things Steele says.

 

[Shogun]

why hasn't steele been booted yet

cause they're afraid they'll look racist if they fire his butt...

wow jilly, even for you.
of course the Democrat-Progressive party doesn't have a problem kicking their colored folks to the curb if they don't conform to the party line, now do they.

not at all.. You see, WE don't tend to use the occasional non-white as a token so it's easier to treat people of all colors as individuals and criticize their actions as such without fearing the loss of token examples of pluralism. Hell, that you'd even suggest that he should remain just because he's black is fucking hilarious. and racist but mostly hilarious.

 

[VaYank5150]

cause they're afraid they'll look racist if they fire his butt...

wow jilly, even for you.
of course the Democrat-Progressive party doesn't have a problem kicking their colored folks to the curb if they don't conform to the party line, now do they.

not at all.. You see, WE don't tend to use the occasional non-white as a token so it's easier to treat people of all colors as individuals and criticize their actions as such without fearing the loss of token examples of pluralism. Hell, that you'd even suggest that he should remain just because he's black is fucking hilarious. and racist but mostly hilarious.

Who is "we"?

 

[Murf76]

Hahaha. Jesus. You just defended slavery as the right thing to do at the time.

There are no words.

You would have preferred that the union not be formed at all?

Are you surmising that without the 3/5 representation, there would never have been a union????

No. I'm saying that without Northern acceptance of slavery, the Southern States would not have ratified at all. The three-fifths rule wasn't the main issue. It was a compromise that Southern States agreed to, but when you remember that taxation was also based on population, the agreement for less representation would have been in exchange for less of a federal tax burden.

It wasn't the three-fifths rule that ended up as the Southern complaint. It was lack of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Clause.


The three-fifths rule sounds repugnant on its face. I mean, the very idea of counting a human being as less than whole is incredible to modern thinkers. But when you look at it from the abolitionist's perspective, it allowed for more representation in the Northern States, and thus more power to affect the condition of slavery at a national level.

"Kicking the can" from our perspective, after the Civil War, might seem an unimaginable mistake. But we forget that slavery was a condition that people were accustomed to in those days. It wasn't unusual and it wasn't limited to blacks throughout the world. In historical terms, it was an established norm dating back to the first recorded history, encompassing all continents and all races at one time or another.
Abolition was kind of a new way of thinking, an enlightened philosophy, just as the existence of "unalienable rights" was and just as the "American Experiment" was.

When you step back and look at the situation dispassionately, the Founders did provide us with the means to end slavery peacefully. They loaded the dice in terms of representation and provided us a means to change the document. Short of failing to establish a Constitution at all, that was the best they could do for us and still give us one country instead of two. And at the time, two would have likely failed.

It's not the fault of the U.S. Constitution that cooler heads didn't prevail in the end. Peaceful means were available. They just weren't fully utilized. The Fugitive Slave Clause should have been overturned, not ignored. The Southern States would not have had any claim to nullification in that case.