The 3/5's compromise was an anti-slavery compromise...
"The magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged, that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it."
James Madison said that. He recognized that slavery was evil.
Expecting an 18th century slave owner to just abandon the economic system he was born into overnight is absurd.
There's a reason Bill Gates and John Kerry and all of the other climate morons burn more fossil fuels than a few entire states flying around the world telling people fossil fuel is evil...
You play the hand you're dealt not the hand you wish you had.
Incredible. I wasn’t sure I’d ever see enslaved human beings compares to jet fuel but here we are. Profits over people every time.
Since you're slow let me dumb it down for you.
In 2022 the American economy runs on fossil fuels.
In the in 18th century the southern American economy ran on slavery.
Comparing them is perfectly logical when you aren't an obtuse virtue signaling clown.
I don't see why you keep pushing New Zealand as a standard bearer. It's obvious that its an island nation rooted in colonialism and racism that continues to this very day. You should be ashamed, sir.
I'm not pushing NZ as a standard bearer (although it is ranked second amongst the world's democracies), but merely responding to a poster who seeks to deflect from the dramatic decline in US standards.
This entire slavery sidebar is irrelevant to the thread. The Wigand keeps getting stuck on some arcane obtuse detail trying to build an entire edifice of argument atop. Earlier it was obsessive advocacy of a search expedition for dead zygotes in the sea of Menses.
Have it your way on slavery. Now what? (Let’s say you also found zygotes in menses. What do you propose to do next?)
This entire slavery sidebar is irrelevant to the thread. The Wigand keeps getting stuck on some arcane obtuse detail trying to build an entire edifice of argument atop. Earlier it was obsessive advocacy of a search expedition for dead zygotes in the sea of Menses.
Have it your way on slavery. Now what? (Let’s say you also found zygotes in menses. What do you propose to do next?)
Logic doesn't work on liberals. They are incapable of it.
Logical people don't spend their lives desperately searching for the next thing to pretend to be outraged about.
This entire slavery sidebar is irrelevant to the thread. The Wigand keeps getting stuck on some arcane obtuse detail trying to build an entire edifice of argument atop. Earlier it was obsessive advocacy of a search expedition for dead zygotes in the sea of Menses.
Have it your way on slavery. Now what? (Let’s say you also found zygotes in menses. What do you propose to do next?)
Do you want to be an originalist or not? The Constitution was written to serve and protect a select group of people in America. It wasn't for Black people, who were owned by the Constitution's author. And it was wasn't for women, who were largely the property of their fathers or husbands and had next to no agency. That doesn't fit well with modern society. We've passed some amendments to deal with those failings and could use some more to deal with others.
The originalist view is that there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent the government from forbidding a specific medical treatment like abortion. Words to that effect aren't in the document. If you want that take, then it's only fair to apply it to automatic weapons, race relations and every other topic that Madison and the founders didn't expressly write about two centuries ago.
This entire slavery sidebar is irrelevant to the thread. The Wigand keeps getting stuck on some arcane obtuse detail trying to build an entire edifice of argument atop. Earlier it was obsessive advocacy of a search expedition for dead zygotes in the sea of Menses.
Have it your way on slavery. Now what? (Let’s say you also found zygotes in menses. What do you propose to do next?)
Do you want to be an originalist or not? The Constitution was written to serve and protect a select group of people in America. It wasn't for Black people, who were owned by the Constitution's author. And it was wasn't for women, who were largely the property of their fathers or husbands and had next to no agency. That doesn't fit well with modern society. We've passed some amendments to deal with those failings and could use some more to deal with others.
The originalist view is that there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent the government from forbidding a specific medical treatment like abortion. Words to that effect aren't in the document. If you want that take, then it's only fair to apply it to automatic weapons, race relations and every other topic that Madison and the founders didn't expressly write about two centuries ago.
I understand the point youre trying to make, but a point of contention is that there were automatic weapons in existence at the time of revolutionary war.
This entire slavery sidebar is irrelevant to the thread. The Wigand keeps getting stuck on some arcane obtuse detail trying to build an entire edifice of argument atop. Earlier it was obsessive advocacy of a search expedition for dead zygotes in the sea of Menses.
Have it your way on slavery. Now what? (Let’s say you also found zygotes in menses. What do you propose to do next?)
Do you want to be an originalist or not? The Constitution was written to serve and protect a select group of people in America. It wasn't for Black people, who were owned by the Constitution's author. And it was wasn't for women, who were largely the property of their fathers or husbands and had next to no agency. That doesn't fit well with modern society. We've passed some amendments to deal with those failings and could use some more to deal with others.
The originalist view is that there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent the government from forbidding a specific medical treatment like abortion. Words to that effect aren't in the document. If you want that take, then it's only fair to apply it to automatic weapons, race relations and every other topic that Madison and the founders didn't expressly write about two centuries ago.
You're virtue signaling...
The entire world was racist and sexist in the 18th century.
The fact that racism and sexism weren't enshrined in the constitution says more than you seem to understand.
Logically consistent but I don’t agree. I think a woman should be able to opt out of pregnancy. I think the effects on their bodies are enough to warrant them this right. In the future where surrogates are more common or there’s a way to grow a baby without a woman, I would be comfortable granting men the right to keep the baby no matter what. It would just be an early pregnancy transfer instead of abortion.
Sure, you don’t need to agree. But I would argue that pregnancy is entirely normal as the overwhelming majority of women choose to go through it in life. It has a definable cost, like to throw an admittedly somewhat arbitrary example, 4.5 months of income to the unwanting mother. The rest of the effects on the body are normal, not an oppression. If it were, practically every woman wouldn’t (normally) also delight in the prospect of going through that pain.
Wow you really keep doubling down on this.
Most women are not “delighted” about pregnancy. They are delighted about the result.
The originalist view is that there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent the government from forbidding a specific medical treatment like abortion. Words to that effect aren't in the document. If you want that take, then it's only fair to apply it to automatic weapons, race relations and every other topic that Madison and the founders didn't expressly write about two centuries ago.
Originalism or not is irrelevant to abortion. Originalism is subjective anyway, not objective. I don’t particularly care for the originalist take nor do I mind if someone uses it in their persuasion. I don’t have to pick one or the other. It’s irrelevant.
The original constitution as well as subsequent amendments emphasized Life, and the primacy of life principle has never changed. The only thing relevant to abortion that happened was a mistake called Roe based on a flawed reading that has since been acknowledged and corrected.
The originalist view is that there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent the government from forbidding a specific medical treatment like abortion. Words to that effect aren't in the document. If you want that take, then it's only fair to apply it to automatic weapons, race relations and every other topic that Madison and the founders didn't expressly write about two centuries ago.
You seem to be under the impression that jurisprudence is make or break based on one argument in isolation. If it were the case, they wouldn’t be writing tens or hundreds of pages explaining their nuanced reasoning. If you don’t like the originalist take or find yourself unable to control your overexuberance in running amuck with it, just ignore it.
“Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.” - Groucho Marx
“Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.” - Groucho Marx
To add, I’ve always found Groucho’s quite particularly witty because it perfectly glibly blurs the line between “unprincipled” and prioritizing between multiple competing principles as different situations demand.
This entire slavery sidebar is irrelevant to the thread. The Wigand keeps getting stuck on some arcane obtuse detail trying to build an entire edifice of argument atop. Earlier it was obsessive advocacy of a search expedition for dead zygotes in the sea of Menses.
Have it your way on slavery. Now what? (Let’s say you also found zygotes in menses. What do you propose to do next?)
Logic doesn't work on liberals. They are incapable of it.
Logical people don't spend their lives desperately searching for the next thing to pretend to be outraged about.
You guys spend every holiday season whining about saying “Merry Christmas”
I agree. I’m reading reports that on average 2/3 of Americans support Roe. Most of the republicans I know only vote right because they are scared of trans and gas prices.
Those polls are crap. Same ones that have Hillary a 99% chance.
Lol this is classic:
1) Claim that there is large part of America that supports strict controls on abortion
2) Get shown data that shows the opposite -- most Americans support reasonable legal abortions
3) Get mad and say the polls are crap. Demand that people accept your gut feeling as reality.
Logic doesn't work on liberals. They are incapable of it.
Logical people don't spend their lives desperately searching for the next thing to pretend to be outraged about.
You guys spend every holiday season whining about saying “Merry Christmas”
We've gone from Roe to Christmas. Only took 67 pages, but we made it.
To summarize: The Dobb's decision makes sense when you read it. Abortion isn't illegal. States can decide what restrictions, or lack thereof, to put in place, abortion clinics were already rare in some states so the "women have to travel to get an abortion now" talk isn't new, progressives are calling for assassination of Justice Thomas, protests were "mostly peaceful", I've completed my liberal buzzword bingo card 100x over.
