.
The timeline…
1787 - The U.S. Constitution is written. It represents slaves as “three-fifths” of “Free Persons”. It does not grant slaves nor women the right to vote.
1865 - The 13th Amendment is ratified abolishing slavery.
1920 - The 19th Amendment is ratified giving women the right to vote.
1967 - Thurgood Marshall becomes the first African American nominated to the Supreme Court.
1987 - Thurgood Marshall delivers a speech in which he called the Constitution, as drafted by the Founding Fathers, defective.
I cannot accept this invitation, for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite “The Constitution,” they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.
For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution we need look no further than the first three words of the document’s preamble: ‘We the People.” When the Founding Fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America’s citizens. “We the People” included, in the words of the Framers, “the whole Number of free Persons.” United States Constitution, Art. 1, 52 (Sept. 17, 1787). On a matter so basic as the right to vote, for example, Negro slaves were excluded, although they were counted for representational purposes at threefifths each. Women did not gain the right to vote for over a hundred and thirty years.
1993 - Elena Kagan, writes a law review article in tribute to Marshall shortly after his death. She quoted parts of Marshall’s 1987 speech, specifically the part in which he calls the Constitution “defective” and that the Constitution showed “a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.”
2010 (April) – RNC chairman Michael Steele, in response to a question as to why African Americans should vote Republican, said:
“You really don’t have a reason to, to be honest — we haven’t done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True.”
“For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South. Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, ‘Bubba’ went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton.”
2010 (May) – President Obama nominates Elena Kagan for a seat on the Supreme Court.
2010 (May) – RNC chairman Michael Steele, issues a statement:
“Given Kagan’s opposition to allowing military recruiters access to her law school’s campus, her endorsement of the liberal agenda and her support for statements suggesting that the Constitution ‘as originally drafted and conceived,’ was ‘defective,’ you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions to ensure the American people can thoroughly and thoughtfully examine Kagan’s qualifications and legal philosophy before she is confirmed to a lifetime appointment.”
2010 (May) – High-ranking Republicans think the RNC’s position is full of shit.
“I would say that the original Constitution was a document that needed amending, and after the Civil War it was amended and removed those offending parts.” -Senator Jeff Sessions
“I don’t like to see anybody downgrade the Constitution, but let’s face it: The Constitutition, to get passed, had to give the three-fifths language to the South, and that’s what Thurgood Marshall was referring to. And I think most people in retrospect say that was a compromise that they had to make in order to have the Constitution, but it wasn’t right. The rest of the Constitution was right.” – Senator Orrin Hatch
Conclusion:
The Constitution as originally written was defective.
Thurgood Marshall was right.
Elena Kagan was right.
Jeff Sessions was right.
Orrin Hatch was right.
The RNC was not.
___
.
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s fan page by clicking on the ‘Thumbs Up – Like” icon here
.
There is a proverb in Japan that states “Kunshi hyohen”, or, “A wise man changes his mind.” This does not mean the wise change their minds capriciously but when new evidence is offered the wise see the wisdom of no longer clinging to tired old dogmas.
The constitution has been amended when necessary in the past and this trend should continue whenever it becomes obvious that we now have a different understanding of some matter.
“The constitution has been amended when necessary in the past and this trend should continue whenever it becomes obvious that we now have a different understanding of some matter.”
Except in the case of militias and 2nd Amendment rights. These are cast in stone. – NRA
I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment and the Militias (they are ALL capitalized in the Constitution…capitalization describing a proper noun). Of course it is important to remind folks that the Constitutional leader of ALL Militias in the United States is…the President of the United States.
There does seem to be a lot of selective interpretation of our formative and guiding document. It is remarkably similar to the selective reading that goes on in association to the Bible…by the same demographic.
Michael. Why do you believe we still need well regulated Militias? What purpose do they serve besides allowing angry white men to dress up in camouflage and fire off their guns every weekend?
@Peter. Exactly that. Better to have these bozos shooting at each other than shooting up the local McDonalds.
The vast majority of Militia members are regular everyday family
oriented people, most of them are Collage Grads and hold high
paying white collar jobs. Most Militias have varied racial members
and none of the people Ive met who are in Militias would I consider
” bozo’s ” —- the misconception of why Militias exist and the
precived notion that the members are a bunch of nuts is a fallacie
and a tell tail sign of how selective the media can be.
Peter, my comment was intended as satire. I thought that was evident by my reminder to all that the President has Constitutional authority over militias (something that polling tells us would not go over well in most). In answer to your question though, the National Guard fills the part of “well-regulated Militias” and I am sure you can find many reasons to have them around.
Individual outfits like the Michigan Militia may not have a need from my perspective, but if they fill a need in their communities, abide by the law, and respect the rights of others, then I see no prevailing reason to force their disbandment. The more extreme idea that an amendment should be passed springs from the same emotional area that produces ill-conceived ideas like “the marriage amendment”. Those “bozos” have rights that should be respected.
Constitutionally, I would view the 2nd Amendment in the light that strict constructionist Robert Bork would; no individual right exists in a vacuum. Laws that restrict the ability of criminals to be armed are appropriate. Laws that encourage safe-handling of guns are appropriate. The design of these laws is, however, not an easy process. It has proved difficult to beat the NRA in their argument that gun laws do more to hamper law abiding folks that stop crime.
If you are committed to the notion of a technical repeal or modification of the 2nd Amendment Peter, then I wish you good luck my friend. There is no chance, now or in the foreseeable future, that any such amendment will ever pass. Debating that point wastes credibility capital and breath in an era where progressives are forced to fight for so many other critical topics. And yes, climate change and environmental degradation, rational education, equitable economic structure, all are more important than gun control in my estimation.