Yale students want constitution repealed & say it's a white privilege document

rachmaninov sonata no. 2 wrote:

Wrong way around, man. The "welfare state" is people asking their tax money go to something more productive than bombing foreign civilians for oil or teargassing peaceful protesters. It's saying we're willing to lift up the people who need it, not just give handouts to greedy corporations.

I prefer to decide what to do with my own money, and not leave such decisions to corrupt politicians who may decide to bailout a corporation that can't manage it finances or a college graduate who refuses to pay back her student loans.

They could put DC inside of Maryland borders and allow them to vote for Maryland senators plus give them their own congressional district and they would then have representation in Congress, which works in DC.

taller than a runner wrote:

Really? Yale student body is only 44% white.

So I googled this, because no facts are real anymore, and found it comes from Yale's own web page (

). It says:

"The enrolled student population at Yale University is 44.3% White, 13.9% Asian, 9.4% Hispanic or Latino, 5.67% Black or African American, 4.76% Two or More Races, 0.324% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.108% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders."

These numbers only add up to 78.138%.

Good job, Yale. At least you sound diverse to people who may not be reading very closely.

Runner10287 wrote:

Isn't that what constitutional amendments are for? Like we already have and had made updates and changes. But not because a bunch of over educated Ivy League kids with some time to kill and looking to make some a noise say so.

You elected a lot of liberals so if they propose amendments.

Like I said earlier, we won't be seeing any more amendments.

You either won't get 2/3 of the country agreeing on any change or even if 99% of Americans wanted term limits on Congress, you're not getting 2/3 of them putting themselves out on the street.

Nancy and Mitch will never leave or allow it.

Something about that power and benefits.

No, my use of the word crazy doesn't put me in any exceptionalism camp, and it doesn't prove whatever point you think you are making.

Once again, what would you change? What are your objections? What are ANY of the ideas in a replacement governing document you think would make the replacement "more robust and up-to-date"? You must have some, or you wouldn't have posted multiple times.

Yeah hi that’s part of living in a society. I doubt you’re wealthy enough to be completely take on all the necessary costs of every day existence.

It’s pretty funny that you’re whining about paying for stuff on the Internet which was funded by the government

What do you think the average IQ in DC is?

Seriously, do you want these low IQ democrats voting?

runnerboy70 wrote:

What do you think the average IQ in DC is?

Seriously, do you want these low IQ democrats voting?

In Washington D. C. it is probably 90-95, but Yale you have to be a genius or near genius to get in, people with all A's in High School in advanced classes who score in the 1500's (On a scale of 1600) are regularly turned down, so my guess is the average IQ at Yale is about 180, there may be a few students who have an IQ as low as 150 if they are in an underrepresented group, or have some amazing story of overcoming adversity, or are a star athlete, or have a school and/or political connection, but even if you have ALL these things you still need an IQ of above 140 which would get you to Mensa, All the Students will go on to become extraordinary in their chosen field, Heck even Bill Gates, Zuckerberg and others who were among the dumbest to get in and had to drop out, are extraordinary in their fields and they are the rejects/the dumb ones, being the Dumbest person At Yale is like being the slowest runner under 3:30.00 in a 1500 still outstanding.

M_Hildebrandt wrote:

https://www.theblaze.com/shows/glenn-tv/yale-students-repeal-constitution?utm_content=bufferb3b12&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fb-theblaze&fbclid=IwAR2ZPypei4glztbMbZQtf383v2ai3NQDJ4PZki0K7ffBXdyP5XOzToGBA9k

We are all now suffragettes.

my hinney wrote:

Hmmmm...A document that codified is rights are for white men only and black people only count as 3/5 of a person.

What’s wrong with staying and making the country better?

Anyone who says this is automatically an idiot.

person who reads wrote:

Section two of the very first article of the US Constitution regarding apportioning representatives and taxes excludes "Indians" and regards slaves as only three-fifths in the count.

Yes, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments corrected that, but still it's eerie to read that kind of language in the very first article of our country's constitution.

That said, of course, the US Constitution should not be repealed.

If you dont understand or refuse to understand the context, you are not smart.

What the denizens of letsrun and other buffoons dont understand is that the Three-Fifths compromise / clause has long been a target of this same agenda against the constitution. On a more mild level these people argue that the consitution has been flawed since its beginning because of it.

The other similar, sometimes overlapping argument comes from the opinion whether the constitution is a living document or is, as is, written when it was written, and, therefore, applicable to the late 1700s and early 1800s time period only and not subject modern interpretation.

C. C. Writer wrote:

my hinney wrote:

Hmmmm...A document that codified is rights are for white men only and black people only count as 3/5 of a person.

What’s wrong with staying and making the country better?

Anyone who says this is automatically an idiot.

I did not read the entire thread and you obviously did not want to spend the time fleshing out your comment so I will.

The 3/5 compromise was the first step in the abolition of slavery. The goal was to convince the slave states to join the union to avoid the continent being carved up by global powers. The effort to undermine the revolution went on until the middle of the 19th century.

Congressional representatives and votes were granted according to population.

The slave states wanted slaves counted as full residents/citizens in order to obtain more seats in congress.

The non-slave states convinced the slave states to count slaves as 3/5 a person; less power for the south/Delaware/Robinettes but a full union - Emancipation to come in less than one lifetime after the ratification of the Constitutution.

Brilliant, empathetic and historic. We are now all suffragettes because most citizens do not know the above.

You dems may be pleased with the results down the entire ballot but you also did not vote.

runnerboy70 wrote:

Seriously, do you want these low IQ democrats voting?

Yes.

Dairyland wrote:

People can think whatever they want and you can’t do anything about it. I think you’re stupid

But they can't SAY whatever they want. Not anymore.

Classic fascism situation. The right to an opinion as long as you keep it to yourself.

Fake news. Don't believe anything from right wing agitprop.

Dairyland wrote:

daytripper wrote:

do you see what you did? you said the constitution states 'its an inalienable right" so a written constitution is not necessary

however , the written constitution is the first time in history that this 'inalienable' right was thought up and written down as the basis being formed. where do you think this inalienable right would have existed , if not written in the constitution.

It’s “unalienable” first off, and second off, the US constitution was not the first time in history that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness was thought up and written down. What grade did you get in high school US history man?

Alright smart guy, the US Constitution was not the first time, or even at time at all, that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was written down. That was in the Declaration of Independence.

@newredsun above, you are off the mark on this. The 3/5 Compromise was a power play by the southern states. Northern states agreed to it because a) they needed those states to ratify the Constitution and b) most northern delegates were concerned with tariffs and trade; they didn't care about human rights either.

The 3/5 clause was in no way a "step toward abolition." It gave disproportional power to southern states, who gained the political representation of millions of humans who were denied any kind of political voice for almost a century after the ratification of the document.