Skip to main content

View Diary: Tr**tor and Tr**son (48 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And it has been amended. (6+ / 0-)

    There is a process to this.

    •  They never actually changed that part. (5+ / 0-)

      They just abolished slavery. The point is that just because something was put in the original constitution doesn't make it sacred. Various things have been put in and taken out. The section that alludes to treason has had very little use in practice.

      There are a number of things about the constitution that I think could do with amendment.

      •  True, but... (0+ / 0-)

        my point was that there is a process to it. So if you don't like it, it needs to be changed via the process given in the document. So pointing out that the Constitution defines slaves as 3/5 of a person makes no sense. And in fact by your own argument it is moot, i.e. if they abolished slavery, then by the constitution, it cannot exist, so by having a definition of slavery and then abolishing said idea, that definition doesn't really apply.

        •  Slavery could be put back in (0+ / 0-)

          by amendment, just like they did with booze.

          Nobody is suggesting any other avenue for change other than amendment. However, that requires a strong public consensus. You can go on hating something without that threshold having been attained. That is where I stand on guns. I'd happily repeal the 2nd amendment.

          •  But the point is you compared the def of Treason (0+ / 0-)

            to a part of the Constitution that is now defunct. I didn't suggest that you were changing the Constitution arbitrarily, what I suggested was that you tried to reject this part of the Constitution based on another part of the Constitution that has been changed. Which makes no sense. Yes, we can put slavery back in if you want, and take treason out if you want, but slavery is out now and treason is in now. So regardless of the sacredness of the document, it is the law right now.

            •  I believe he was making the point (0+ / 0-)

              that even though it was in the Constitution, it was wrong... your "at the time" comment notwithstanding...

              BTW, it does not identify slavery per se, it says "free persons" and "all other persons"... IIRC... FWIW...

              Americans who vote against their own interests are driven by "the human need to find a strand of significance that will hold everything together that isn't on TV..." (quote is from P. Roth in "Sabbath's Theater")

              by ceebee7 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 05:09:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site