Liberal Bigotry

maineman said:
Art IV Clause 3.
Click to expand...
You must be confused, as you need to cite a section before a clause. Here's the complete Article if it will help you:

Article IV

Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2

Clause 1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Clause 2:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who
shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand
of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered
up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Clause 3:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or
Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall
be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may
be due.

Section 3

Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new
State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or
Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules
and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to
the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
particular State.

Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...
 
maineman said:
absolutely. before the 13th amendment, it WAS constitutional to own slaves.
Click to expand...

No, it was INTERPRETED to be constitutional, it wasn't and isn't "constitutional" to own other humans. The 13th Amendment codifies this, but that doesn't mean it was previously constitutional to own people. There is not one word in the Constitution which supports that concept. It was through INTERPRETATION that slavery was kept as a legal practice in America, because human beings were deemed "property" by the court.
 
maineman said:
Yes there is.

Article 4 and then, the only Clause 3 in Article IV.
Click to expand...

Bravo Mr. Maineman. well done.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

§ 1805. This clause was introduced into the constitution solely for the benefit of the slave-holding states, to enable them to reclaim their fugitive slaves, who should have escaped into other states, where slavery was not tolerated. The want of such a provision under the confederation was felt, as a grievous inconvenience, by the slave-holding states, since in many states no aid whatsoever would be allowed to the owners; and sometimes indeed they met with open resistance. In fact, it cannot escape the attention of every intelligent reader, that many sacrifices of opinion and feeling are to be found made by the Eastern and Middle states to the peculiar interests of the south. This forms no just subject of complaint; but it should for ever repress the delusive and mischievous notion, that the south has not at all times had its full share of benefits from the Union.

§ 1806. It is obvious, that these provisions for the arrest and removal of fugitives of both classes contemplate summary ministerial proceedings, and not the ordinary course of judicial investigations, to ascertain, whether the complaint be well founded, or the claim of ownership be established beyond all legal controversy. In case of suspected crimes the guilt or innocence of the party is to be made out at his trial; and not upon the preliminary inquiry, whether he shall be delivered up. All, that would seem in such cases to be necessary, is, that there should be primâ facie evidence before the executive authority to satisfy its judgment, that there is probable cause to believe the party guilty, such as upon an ordinary warrant would justify his commitment for trial. And in the cases of fugitive slaves there would seem to be the same necessity of requiring only primâ facie proofs of ownership, without putting the party to a formal assertion of his rights by a suit at the common law. Congress appear to have acted upon this opinion; and, accordingly, in the statute upon this subject have authorized summary proceedings before a magistrate, upon which he may grant a warrant for a removal.
Click to expand...
 
as I can recall, there was a ballot initiative in Alabama to remove the prohibition against mixed race marriages... and YOU voted against it...
Click to expand...

No, I was accused of this by someone, but I wasn't living in the state of Alabama at the time. I don't even recall what the actual ballot initiative was about, but the CRA of 1964 would preclude it from being an initiative regarding racial equality, as that was already the law. I don't know what it was about, and didn't vote on any such initiative.

I did vote a few years ago, against a ballot initiative to amend our state constitution, and I did post my case for why I voted as I did, and it was mischaracterized here. In that initiative, the "liberal" contention was, a vote to 'remove' segregation-era language from the state constitution. However, nothing would have been removed, it is against the state constitution to remove it, and there were many more "extenuating circumstances" and the particular language was obsolete and unenforceable anyway. It pertained to an era when we had segregated schools, which we no longer have.

The Alabama state constitution is the largest constitution of any state, province, or country, in the entire world. It is over 750 pages long, and much of it is mundane obsolete bullshit that doesn't mean anything anymore. A group of Alabama citizens have petitioned for a Constitutional Convention, to completely rewrite the state constitution, and eliminate ALL of the assorted obsolete garbage. It is counterproductive to that objective, to support new amendments to the constitution.

Also, this initiative was a Democrat effort to thwart the will of the people and the Republican governor, who promised there would not be an increase in property tax. He demanded the state congress present him a balanced budget, and without a tax increase, because the people of Alabama elected him to do that. Instead of abiding to the wishes of the people, the Democrats devised this ingenious ballot initiative... to *cough bullshit* remove segregation-era language from the constitution.... and oh by the way, allow the state congress to control school taxes. The idea was, they could get the money through school tax instead of property tax, to offset their spending. Me and 70% of Alabamians, told them to kiss our ass.
 
maineman said:
no. I'm not.

you got something other than insect noises?
Click to expand...

Wow you've been avoiding this awhile now. But yet again:
1. Demonstrate how I share any prejudices with the Democrat Party.
2. Explain to me how any one of these programs is Constitutional on the federal level: welfare, government housing, government run schools, or Affirmative Action.
 
Southern Man said:
Wow you've been avoiding this awhile now. But yet again:
1. Demonstrate how I share any prejudices with the Democrat Party.
2. Explain to me how any one of these programs is Constitutional on the federal level: welfare, government housing, government run schools, or Affirmative Action.
Click to expand...


1. I said that you shared prejudices with the democratic party of the 19th century... not the democratic party of the 21st century

2. Explain how any of those programs is specifically UNconstitutional.
 
maineman said:
1. I said that you shared prejudices with the democratic party of the 19th century... not the democratic party of the 21st century

2. Explain how any of those programs is specifically UNconstitutional.
Click to expand...

1. Then demonstrate how I share any prejudices with the 19th century Democrat Party. *shrug*
2. They are not enumerated, and according to Amendments IX and X, shall be left to the People or the States. The feds shall not get involved.
 
Southern Man said:
1. Then demonstrate how I share any prejudices with the 19th century Democrat Party. *shrug*
2. They are not enumerated, and according to Amendments IX and X, shall be left to the People or the States. The feds shall not get involved.
Click to expand...

1. would you let your children marry a black?
2. take your beef to SCOTUS. I have no problem with the feds involvement with any of those programs, and, apparently,neither does the supreme court. Methinks that maybe you are barking at the moon... but, by all means, don't stop on my account.
 
maineman said:
1. would you let your children marry a black?
2. take your beef to SCOTUS. I have no problem with the feds involvement with any of those programs, and, apparently,neither does the supreme court. Methinks that maybe you are barking at the moon... but, by all means, don't stop on my account.
Click to expand...
1. Yes.
2. SCOTUS is wrong again. Now explain your rationale for any one of these programs being constitutional.
 
maineman said:
1. liar
2. I disagree that SCOTUS is wrong
Click to expand...

1. The fact that you have a closed-minded assumption that conservative= bigotry does not make me a liar; it just proves that you are closed-minded. Again, can you demonstrate how I share any prejudices with the 19th century Democrat Party?
2. Nice that you'd blindly swallow everything a judge told you, but again, can you explain your rationale for any one of those programs being constitutional?

I'll wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top