Skip to main content

View Diary: Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act (341 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I take exception. (16+ / 0-)

    Slavery was in the Constitution because if it hadn't been, there would have been no Constitution.  The Constitution isn't an "evil" document; it is a flawed one, the best compromise they could get in 1787.

    (Now you can argue that it might have been better for the States to go their separate ways in 1787, as many feel about 1861, but that's another debate.)

    "A good president does what's possible and a great president changes what's possible." --sterno

    by sk4p on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 07:38:38 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, there would have been no Southern states in (0+ / 0-)

      the Second Republic. And no internal pressure to end slavery as a matter of law if not fully as a matter of fact.

      "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

      by Superskepticalman on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 07:54:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And that would be a Bad thing? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave925

        No Southern States.  Hmmmmm?   Let me thinks about that....

        •  Counterfactual guesstimating suggests that slavery (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wadingo, auapplemac, sk4p

          in the South, had the South achieved independence, could have persisted far longer than it factually did.

          That would have been a bad thing; not to mention a cause of war with the United States over runaway slaves. A fortified Ohio River might have been a sight to behold; that and the fortress cities of Cairo, IL, and Paducah, KY. And Louisville and Cincinnati.

          "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

          by Superskepticalman on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:58:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not in the constitution by name, therefore not in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sk4p

      it. The ratifiers in the South argued the fugitive servant clause covered slavery, but it didn't. Otherwise there would have been a debate at the Convention, which there wasn't. Slavery was left to the states under the 10th Amendment, having nothing to do with the federal government, the word scrupulously omitted, according to Madison. This is one of the legal black holes where it was left to politics, and Courts went with the politics as in Prigg and Dred Scott under the threat of secession. The North capitulated on this and also on the nature of the government itself as being a contract between states not a union of people. The civil war resolved some of these issues. The issue today is judicial supremacy, where the Court strikes down any law it doesn't like for any reason it wants and dares  a dysfunctional Congress, that it owns under Citizens United, to apply checks and balances.    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site