Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The slaves were never property to begin with. They were slaves.
So who or what was it that first classified slaves as property?
Hint: The State
Ok, that should have been a spoiler but I digress.
The words 'slave' or ''slavery' were not used in the US Constitution. The ambiguous language which was used illustrated the 'peculiar' compromise in a 'peculiar' effort as a defense of the indefensible.
Another word which doesn't appear in the Constitution is 'corporation'. The 'corporations are people' arguments were used before the ink was dry on the 14th Amendment. Almost all of these rights originate from the twisting of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause which was meant to provide rights for freed slaves.
'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie How a farcical series of events in the 1880s produced an enduring and controversial legal precedent
Quote:
Somewhat unintuitively, American corporations today enjoy many of the same rights as American citizens. Both, for instance, are entitled to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits over 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day. ...
As for lawyers lying to the Supreme Court, ethically challenged justices, powerful corporations, & so on? 'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.'
Additionally although the names or labels may change folks like Mr. Thoreau spoke about "no-government men", here from Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, in 1849:
Quote:
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
No offense intended for the 'unwilling citizens' among us, however is it too much to ask for even those to "speak practically"?
You don't understand the purposes of the movement at all if you think practicality has anything to do with it, especially as it manifests itself on this forum. They are the few and the proud. The perpetual intellectual and moral superior. Practicality may lead to implementation which would expose the ideology's shortcomings.
The words 'slave' or ''slavery' were not used in the US Constitution. The ambiguous language which was used illustrated the 'peculiar' compromise in a 'peculiar' effort as a defense of the indefensible.
Another word which doesn't appear in the Constitution is 'corporation'. The 'corporations are people' arguments were used before the ink was dry on the 14th Amendment. Almost all of these rights originate from the twisting of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause which was meant to provide rights for freed slaves.
'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie How a farcical series of events in the 1880s produced an enduring and controversial legal precedent
As for lawyers lying to the Supreme Court, ethically challenged justices, powerful corporations, & so on? 'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.'
Additionally although the names or labels may change folks like Mr. Thoreau spoke about "no-government men", here from Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, in 1849:
Completely agree. So much judicial legislating has been done by creating all kind of novel meanings for the 14th amendment when it's originally understood and intended meaning was to provide freed slaves equal standing under laws. It's been twisted into meaning just about anything and everything the Court can imagine that it does.
Isn't that bizarre? As if women didn't have abortions before they were legal /sigh
People do a lot of illegal things. The point is it should be up to legislators of each state if not US Congress to decide if it's legal and not the Court. And I say that as a person who think abortion is immoral but probably should be legal so I'm not against the outcome of Roe per se but that the Court decided it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
