The Constitution Was Literally Written By Slaveowners. Why Is America Obsessed With Upholding It?

[In It to Win It]

The Root via Yahoo News

Last week, the Supreme Court eviscerated a woman’s right to abortion, undermined Miranda rights, expanded gun rights and allowed border patrol agents to operate with even further impunity. Today, it ruled that a former Washington state high school football coach can pray on the field immediately after games—regardless of the religious backgrounds of the students.

The mostly conservative justices are using the Constitution as a smoke screen for their rulings—which will continue to demolish even more human rights. The governing document was constructed during the Constitutional Convention that occurred in Philadelphia from May 5, 1787 to September 17, 1787.

The primary authors consisted of: John Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. The last two men on that list owned slaves. How can this set of laws still guide a nation when it was concocted by white men who looked at Black people as property and not as human?

The fact that a Black man—Justice Clarence Thomas—is working to erode the rights of millions of people is more than ironic: it’s downright pathetic. In a concurring opinion Thomas wrote Friday, he claimed that the Supreme Court’s controversial June decisions aimed to weaken substantive due process which protects certain rights even if they’re not listed in the Constitution.

“As I have previously explained, ‘substantive due process’ is an oxymoron that ‘lack[s] any basis in the Constitution,’” he wrote. He also said that it’s “legal fiction” that is “particularly dangerous.” Even more ironically, how is it up to the states to decide a woman’s right to abortion yet not interfere with a person’s right to carry a concealed firearm?

[elleng]

1. History; it is what it is.

[mitch96]

2. uhh b/c it has worked for us for 246 years?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Not all of us.

[emulatorloo]

8. Appreciate your very well supported and detailed post eom

[Hav]

29. What WhiskeyGrinder said wasn't even controversial

Do you disagree with the point that the constitution served some groups of Americans better than others?
Isn't it pathetic that half the population had to wait until the 20th century to have the right to vote?

[emulatorloo]

37. Yes, It was pathetic. But the constitution has evolved from when it was first written.

It should be easier to amend it though.

Our main problem right now is a lawless court.

[Hav]

43. Yes, it has evolved which is an important point

The initial argument was that it has worked for 246 years and it's fair to question that. It may be technically true but it seems a little bit dismissive of the struggles many groups still had over the years due to systemic issues that the constitution could have addressed earlier in a better society.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

33. Not all of us are white male land-owners, which is for whomst the constitution was written.

[emulatorloo]

38. Has the constitution evolved since it was first written or is it frozen in time?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

40. Even its evolution is designed to protect the status quo.

[emulatorloo]

42. So it still only allows only white men to own property?

Maybe that’ll be the case if MAGA’s get to rewrite it, but we’re gonna fight against that. Right?

[BannonsLiver]

39. Oh it has? Tell me more about how it has worked?

Worked for everyone or just some people?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

3. Because, overall, it has established a framework for balancing (and checking) power

that has largely served this country well.

[TwilightZone]

5. Because it's the only one we have.

I would also argue that in recent times Constitutional interpretation is a significantly larger problem than the Constitution itself, with the exception of things like the Electoral College.

[In It to Win It]

9. Completely agree

[Sympthsical]

6. Does anyone trust modern society to rewrite a Constitution?

Answer honestly. Does anyone think that wouldn't be a festival of fuckery?

And given that Republicans just seem plain better at subverting and using processes to reach their ends even without a majority . . .

Twitter vs The Right-Wing. Who can write the most dysfunctional constitution?

Super hard pass. By the end of it, the French Revolution would look like a couple of unruly parents at a little league game.

[stopdiggin]

10. +1. well said!

super hard pass it is!

[In It to Win It]

11. You got me at

"festival of fuckery." That got a good chuckle out of me... and yes, it absolutely would be.

[emulatorloo]

12. Gotta agree with you. Twitter 'influencers' and maga nuts is a recipe for disaster

[brush]

20. Republicans are not better at anything. The...

filibuster allows the minority to halt bills that make life better for society.

That doesn't make them better, just makes them craven regressives who are out for control instead of the betterment of society.

[Sympthsical]

21. That doesn't argue against what I said

They are better at using processes to get what they want.

The whole reason we're discussing Roe is because McConnell bent the Senate to his will. Nothing he did was illegal. Immoral, unethical, just plain shitty. Yes, all of those things. But within the bounds of ability.

I can't think of a time we've managed something like that.

[brush]

23. You never heard of Harry Reid? He's the one who first changed...

the need for the 60-vote, super majority on federal judge appointments below SCOTUS.

McConnell just took that and in an unethical bit of thievery, expanded it to the Supreme Court, the obvious court that needs vigorous debate and scrutiny of a super majority because of lifetime appointments and decisions which affect the entire nation, he used it to steal SCOTUS seats. I would never call that trickery being good at anything but being evil, which is why we now have the American Taliban 6 on the court snatching rights away and signaling more to come.

[Sympthsical]

24. Well, exactly. McConnell took it to new levels

In the context of this thread, we're discussion something akin to a constitutional convention. Does anyone think Republicans wouldn't bring their general effective shittiness to that circus?

[brush]

32. That doesn't make them better at anything, just evil and unethical.

[gldstwmn]

25. Remember when President Clinton had the line item

veto? Just think about what we could do with that now.

[Polybius]

28. It was unconstitutional though

Struck down 6-3. Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg were in the majority. Scalia, O'Connor, and Breyer dissented. Odd mix.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

[Just A Box Of Rain]

26. The filibuster also allows a minority to stop bills that would be very damaging

to a society.

The filibuster is extra-constitutional in any case, but the logic of the constitution does put a brake on runway majoritarianism--by design.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

7. These. justices. are. not. "conservative".

They are RADICAL. They are EXTREME. If there are any conservatives in this shit-show, it's us democrats, trying desperately to preserve representative democracy and centuries of political tradition.

Good article though.

[emulatorloo]

14. Agree. And they don't give a damn about law/the constitution. They are Christian fanatics

[Sympthsical]

19. They are conservative, but they're unfettered by compromise

Generally, the Court works best when the justices have to exchange in a give and take to reach enough consensus to hand down a ruling.

What we're seeing is what happens when one side suddenly has unchecked freedom. They always wanted to do this. They were simply unable.

Until now.

[H2O Man]

13. Because John Lennon sang

"You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We'd all love to change your head."

[stopdiggin]

15. get your point

but I don't think it's a particularly strong one.

As I see it you're argument is more with the Court than it is with the Constitution. (and in that, welcome to the crowd) If you are truly arguing that the Constitution has no bearing or validity - then I think you're a bit out in the weeds there.
(and that spoken by someone who has never had an inclination toward deifying the document)
----- -----

[Timewas]

16. It has worked

For a long time but it requires loyalty and real patriotism not this phony shit we are seeing today... Also needs leaders that are strong enough to hold it together... This country is more divided than it has been for a long time and if it doesn't pull it together the "Great Experiment" is over...

Also take look at countries that do not have some sort of constitution or an equivalency of some sort...

[Big Blue Marble]

17. Because it is the best document ever created to protect the rights of the citizens of the country

at the time it was written especially with the first 10 amendments. And with the ability to add
amendments it has been improved over the centuries. Is it perfect, no. Is it the model for all
other democracies that followed, yes. Do we need more amendments, yes. For starters, we
need the ERA and an amendment enshrining privacy into the constitution. It also needs to
have an amendment to remove the electoral college.

You would not want to see the devastation, if we threw it out and started over.

[Retrograde]

18. Despite the faults of its writers it is a generally well-thought-out document

The Constitutional Convention was called to correct a lot of the flaws in the Articles of Confederation. Yes, they were men of their time and were as flawed as all humans. I give them credit for trying to design guidelines for government that would cover the problems of their day and their foreseeable future; I don't think they expected what they wrote to last this long. They did build in ways to change and update it: maybe they were too stringent, or maybe Congress was too loath to introduce new amendments to keep up with the times. They weaseled around the whole slavery issue, never actually using the word - although they did write in a ban on "importation" after 1808.

One of the reasons they tip-toed around the subject was because they felt they needed the Southern states to agree to join the new country: otherwise they felt they were too small to survive with just the Northern states. IMHO, the history of the US afterwards is largely the history of dealing with the South's tantrums (yes, I'm looking at you Texas)

[brush]

22. Good point about 2 of the principal authors were slave masters.

I never heard it put quite that way before. And that fact my be why there are some fundmental flaws in it. One main one is it's almost impossible to fix/change/amend and therefore little progress can made of the obvious need to emphasize the importance first sentence of the Second Amendment for example. Also the Electoral College needs t go, the unelected Supreme Court lifetime appointments need to be reexamined, and there are other changes that just can't happen because of how it has to be done.

It's a good framework but it's not sacrosanct.

[Polybius]

27. Because it's the law of the land

We have to uphold it. If we don't, the US will break up.

[standingtall]

30. If the constitution was ever going to disgarded

The time for that was after the civil war. A new constitution in this era would certainly lead to another civil war.

Not certain of this, but I think I saw in a documentary on Netflix a few months back that there were people in favor of abolishing the constitution after the civil war, but Fredrick Douglas was against that idea. So if an ex slave can think it should be upheld despite who wrote it. So can we.

[maxsolomon]

34. However, the victors amended the F out of it immediately.

13th, 14th, and 15th.

The SCOTUS is using the 10th to overturn decisions based in the 9th. While the 2nd is interpreted as broadly (but not as literally) as possible.

It is a deeply flawed document: the Senate, the Electoral College, the anachronism of the 2nd.

[Amishman]

31. because we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

The constitution overall is an excellent framework and remarkably applicable after 250 years. We just need a few specific amendments that really should have been taken care of in the past generation or so. To use a housing analogy, it's a bit of a fixer-upper with good bones.

Just because somethings history is touched by the shadow of slavery doesn't mean it is automatically evil or in need of demolition. As the right loves to point out, our own party's history wouldn't survive that scrutiny (but neither would theirs!!!).

Look at a document, organization, or institution as it exists today and just it on those merits. Attempting to damn something for history alone is a puritan exercise that will never end well.

[ripcord]

35. FDR put innocent American citizens in concentration camps based on their race

Should we throw out everything from his New Deal?

[yardwork]

36. You answered the question in your first sentence.

There are quite a few people who would be happy to be allowed to own other people to do their work for them. If it's wrapped up in lies like "This is God's will" and "Some people are inherently less equal than others, and therefore they would be better off as my slaves" - even better! These folks believe that if we could just go back to "the good old days" when white men were in charge, with the help of their loyal white wives, then THEY would be much better off.

The only thing stopping this white utopia is a bunch of liberals. Is it any wonder they're at war with us?

[BannonsLiver]

41. I have virtually no reverence for the fucking founders