Here is a speech I ran across while searching for Senator Howard's list. I wish it were possible that the majority of those who have spent large portions of their time and energy in the effort and pursuit of a return to circumstances when what they thought of as the good ole days were anything but good ole days for POC, former 'others' and those who had the moral fiber to view their circumstances the way this individual does: 1\'Ir. H. Judge Moore was then introduced, and spoke of the delicate position in which he was placed as .a South Carolinian, as a speaker before a convention of colored citizens. f-Ie hud no hand in freeing the slaves, but since a cunventiou of 1 his O\Yn fellow citizens had passed an ordinance of emancipation, and dc:! clared the slaves free, he saw no inconsistency in addressing them us freemen. S lave ry, accordiog to the constituted law of the State, is now
THIS IS GOBBELTY-GOOK!, AS A CANADIAN CITIZEN WHOSE FAMILY MOVED FROM ENGLAND and Abandoned the Southern Cracker element of American Confederacy@, after the A madans GOT BUTT-KICKED in the VIVIL WAR by ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ULYSSES S. GRANT, JOSHUA CHAMBERLAIN, AND ROBERT GOULD SHAW! NOW, WITH TRUMP, the 🎊 🧨 💥 are at it again! sick bastards!
original intent is not only possible it is absolutely necessary because it establishes continuity. we are growing out of principles that developed around the american revolution and we are continuing to work toward their perfection. it's necessary to maintain that continuity to ensure we stay the UNITED states of america. i should add that the civil rights act was passed under congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. that's why it was used in the supreme court case. the law would likely not exist without the commerce clause. otherwise, more information and conversation around reconstruction is needed and appreciated. great job.
Originally intent is really difficult to establish though, given that there was ferocious debate among the founders on almost all components of the constitution and its following amendments. Conflicting visions and continuous debates define is what the founders intended and is what ought to be continued. Among all the rulings up until the late 20th century, only once was originalism explicitly applied and it was not a pretty one. It was Taney in Dred Scott. Of course, if originalism means a limited view on government powers per Madison and others, I totally respect your opinion. But founders did not have a uniform vision for the country and like people today, they disagreed on many things. It would be illogical and absurd to say that it would be possible that a large group of people had agreed on everything about rights and government powers. Here's Lincoln: “Now and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience-to reject all progress-all improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case we should do so upon evidence so conclusive and argument so clear that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand”
Was the "original" intent to maintain slavery? Are we bound by that intent? Was the "original " intent to exclude white women the same rights as white men? Are Christians bound by the "original " intent of those he wrote God's "original" chosen people. The "orginal" intent was the Articles of Confedaration. The "original" intent of the second convention was to modify the Ariticles of the Confedaration . NOT to abolish it and write a new Constitution.
The problem with "original intent" is that it's based on the false premise that the constitution, itself, was not a product of politics (i.e. compromise) as a opposed to some kind of shared ideal. I mean simply reading about the history of the federalists vs anti-federalists and all the political chicanery that was used, just to create the constitution and the bill of rights it's apparent that it's a document of compromises.
Obviously, you were not paying attention! He indicated that there may be a ton of rights granted even if they initially began with just those that were 180 degrees from what rights the chattel slaves did not have and he began to run down a list of them that someone had previously compiled that was not all-inclusive! Why are you putting out mis-information?!?
LOL! the SECOND FOUNDING! WOW! then the original Founding is REALLY the only "Founding" that matters!? Chartered by congress to disseminate information on a NON-PARTISAN BASIS?!? LOL! Riiiiiiigt! If it's promoted by congress it's NOT non-partisan! Anybody who knows what a 14th Amendment citizen is DOESN'T want to be one! Eric has NO legal knowledge and has only a VAGUE understanding of the "Constitution"....he's apparently not even aware that the constitution wasn't fought over slavery, but over states rights...and he has forgotten that this country was founded (by the founding fathers) as a REPUBLIC - only with the SECOND FOUNDING did we become a DEMOCRACY! the SOUTH SUCCESSION was NOT for slavery, watch th-cam.com/video/8S96iQYL0bw/w-d-xo.html... At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention, a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.” www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it
I think your Dr. Livingston is trying much to hard to ignore the central role that slaveholding rights played in the secessionist position as stated in the Confederate Constitution : “In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
You're right when you say , " Anyone who knows what a 14th Amendment citizen is shouldn't want to be one. ", because , contrary to describing the people's rights the Federal Gov't shall not infringe upon in the Original Constitution of 1787 , The 13th amendment states that no State shall make any law that will abridge the "privileges " or " immunities " of these newly defined United States " citizens" . Subsequent to that Eric Foner is asked , " What are these privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States ? " . Foner's answer . " Nobody knows .". Citizens of a specific political state or entity are granted " privileges " as subjects of that entity . That is a far cry from the "people " in the original Constitution having unalienable ,God given rights that the Federal Congress shall not infringe upon. State privileges can be taken away by the entity that granted them . God given human rights cannot and are unalienable . All " law" abiding people of any race sex or creed or persuasion have unalienable rights and the 13th Amendment should be rewritten to reflect that .
@@vicschauberger2737 - HERE IS YOUR ANSWER AS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.... "The ONLY absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States." Supreme Court vs. Valentine
Thank you for posting this.
I think we are still reconstructing American Democracy. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The United States is not a democracy. Democracy is one of the worst forms of government.
Caveat emptor in regard to Foner and his books. I saw an interview with Jacobin magazine (yes, it really exists), and it was telling.
Great stuff.
Thanks to John Bingham, all immigrants' (and obviously citizens') rights are protected.
yes and it should be reintroduced
The 13th Amendment is essential viewing by Ava Duvernay.
✅
Here is a speech I ran across while searching for Senator Howard's list. I wish it were possible that the majority of those who have spent large portions of their time and energy in the effort and pursuit of a return to circumstances when what they thought of as the good ole days were anything but good ole days for POC, former 'others' and those who had the moral fiber to view their circumstances the way this individual does:
1\'Ir. H. Judge Moore was then introduced, and spoke of the delicate position in which he was placed as .a South Carolinian, as a speaker before a
convention of colored citizens. f-Ie hud no hand in freeing the slaves, but
since a cunventiou of 1
his O\Yn fellow citizens had passed an ordinance of
emancipation, and dc:! clared the slaves free, he saw no inconsistency in
addressing them us freemen. S lave ry, accordiog to the constituted law of
the State, is now
THIS IS GOBBELTY-GOOK!, AS A CANADIAN CITIZEN WHOSE FAMILY MOVED FROM ENGLAND and Abandoned the Southern Cracker element of American Confederacy@, after the A madans GOT BUTT-KICKED in the VIVIL WAR by ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ULYSSES S. GRANT, JOSHUA CHAMBERLAIN, AND ROBERT GOULD SHAW! NOW, WITH TRUMP, the 🎊 🧨 💥 are at it again! sick bastards!
original intent is not only possible it is absolutely necessary because it establishes continuity. we are growing out of principles that developed around the american revolution and we are continuing to work toward their perfection. it's necessary to maintain that continuity to ensure we stay the UNITED states of america.
i should add that the civil rights act was passed under congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. that's why it was used in the supreme court case. the law would likely not exist without the commerce clause.
otherwise, more information and conversation around reconstruction is needed and appreciated. great job.
Originally intent is really difficult to establish though, given that there was ferocious debate among the founders on almost all components of the constitution and its following amendments. Conflicting visions and continuous debates define is what the founders intended and is what ought to be continued. Among all the rulings up until the late 20th century, only once was originalism explicitly applied and it was not a pretty one. It was Taney in Dred Scott.
Of course, if originalism means a limited view on government powers per Madison and others, I totally respect your opinion. But founders did not have a uniform vision for the country and like people today, they disagreed on many things. It would be illogical and absurd to say that it would be possible that a large group of people had agreed on everything about rights and government powers.
Here's Lincoln: “Now and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience-to reject all progress-all improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case we should do so upon evidence so conclusive and argument so clear that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand”
Was the "original" intent to maintain slavery? Are we bound by that intent? Was the "original " intent to exclude white women the same rights as white men? Are Christians bound by the "original " intent of those he wrote God's "original" chosen people. The "orginal" intent was the Articles of Confedaration. The "original" intent of the second convention was to modify the Ariticles of the Confedaration . NOT to abolish it and write a new Constitution.
I would also add that different people had different intents. 😉😏
The problem with "original intent" is that it's based on the false premise that the constitution, itself, was not a product of politics (i.e. compromise) as a opposed to some kind of shared ideal. I mean simply reading about the history of the federalists vs anti-federalists and all the political chicanery that was used, just to create the constitution and the bill of rights it's apparent that it's a document of compromises.
Not even a mention about the original and ratified 13th amendment...
Obviously, you were not paying attention! He indicated that there may be a ton of rights granted even if they initially began with just those that were 180 degrees from what rights the chattel slaves did not have and he began to run down a list of them that someone had previously compiled that was not all-inclusive! Why are you putting out mis-information?!?
So many errors in these presumptions…. Reminds of the debate Thomas Sowell had with a white woman from the 70’s on racism
LOL! the SECOND FOUNDING! WOW! then the original Founding is REALLY the only "Founding" that matters!? Chartered by congress to disseminate information on a NON-PARTISAN BASIS?!? LOL! Riiiiiiigt! If it's promoted by congress it's NOT non-partisan! Anybody who knows what a 14th Amendment citizen is DOESN'T want to be one! Eric has NO legal knowledge and has only a VAGUE understanding of the "Constitution"....he's apparently not even aware that the constitution wasn't fought over slavery, but over states rights...and he has forgotten that this country was founded (by the founding fathers) as a REPUBLIC - only with the SECOND FOUNDING did we become a DEMOCRACY! the SOUTH SUCCESSION was NOT for slavery, watch th-cam.com/video/8S96iQYL0bw/w-d-xo.html...
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention, a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.” www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it
I think your Dr. Livingston is trying much to hard to ignore the central role that slaveholding rights played in the secessionist position as stated in the Confederate Constitution :
“In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
More misinformation!
Not going backwards.
You're right when you say , " Anyone who knows what a 14th Amendment citizen is shouldn't want to be one. ", because , contrary to describing the people's rights the Federal Gov't shall not infringe upon in the Original Constitution of 1787 , The 13th amendment states that no State shall make any law that will abridge the "privileges "
or " immunities " of these newly defined United States " citizens" .
Subsequent to that Eric Foner is asked , " What are these privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States ? " .
Foner's answer . " Nobody knows .".
Citizens of a specific political state or entity are granted " privileges " as subjects of that entity . That is a far cry from the "people " in the original Constitution having unalienable ,God given rights that the Federal Congress shall not infringe upon.
State privileges can be taken away by the entity that granted them . God given human rights cannot and are unalienable .
All " law" abiding people of any race sex or creed or persuasion have unalienable rights and the 13th Amendment should be rewritten to reflect that .
@@vicschauberger2737 - HERE IS YOUR ANSWER AS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES....
"The ONLY absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States." Supreme Court vs. Valentine
Clown
pen-CiLe/collorge/?stincii'lde/key=honda(blue)01 //nd.D
pen-CiLe/collorge/?stincii'lde/key=honda