Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Why do people put out quotes that just make themselves look stupid? You can’t ignore the amendment process. Amendments are part of the Constitution. Women didn’t get to vote because activist justices just ignored the Constitution and made crap up. And the worst part is, the person who said this probably thought they were really clever.
Actually the Constitution, as written, did not prevent women from voting, owning property (including slaves) or enjoy the full protection of the law. It was silent on the first two, but even from the beginning women enjoyed the rights enumerated under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Voting and property rights, etc, devolved to the states.
One state, New Jersey, even permitted women to vote in elections as they permitted one vote per household. (Either a man or woman per household could vote and if the woman was head of household she could vote. That change somewhere in the late 1790s or early 1800s when the Democrats took over the state legislature. They changed the franchise to male only, largely because most women who voted tended to vote for Federalists.
Democrats – discriminating by race and sex for over 220 years.
I keep telling my more liberal friends that if abortion is seen as a right by the overwhelming majority they claim, there’s no reason for every SCOTUS appointment to become a bare-knuckles brawl. Simply amend the Constitution. If the vast majority in favor of abortion exists, getting 2/3 of each House and then 3/4 of the States should be easy. Strangely enough, not one of them has said, “Hey, that’s a great idea! Pitter-patter, let’s get at ‘er!”
I found, courtesy of Fox, a quote that says it all: “Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination” – Sen. John Markey (Mass.)
I think this is down more to ignorance, on the one hand, and disingenuousness, on the other, rather than to stupidity.
Most people don’t know what originalism means with regard to constitutional philosophy. And why would they? It’s never been explained to them. They do know what original means, and that can understandably lead someone to think an originalist wants to go back to the Constitution as it was originally ratified.
There’s another group who I suspect fully understands what’s going on and is simply trying to mislead people. The Left are experts and abusing the language to manipulate the ignorant.
That’s a good point. The Constitution is a living, breathing document that changes with the times. However, that change is slow and carefully managed so as to not cause sudden upheavals in our society. However, bad decisions such as Roe and Kelo have had the same effect as a sudden upheaval, almost like “mini-amendments” . . .
Update: I should have added the left views “living and breathing” as making changes on the fly to follow the whims of the latest leftist fad . . .
That’s a great point. One thing I did not really talk about is that simple majority decisions are not very strong. If you focus on that alone, you have to work hard to maintain the decision. The country was moving toward a sort of consensus on abortion when Roe came along and interrupted that. Same with Obergfell. It must be imposed.
What Progressives really like is to get these decisions they favor approved by simple majorities and not have to depend on consensus. Changing the Constitution requires real work. Politicizing the Supreme Court is easier.
Dr. Walter E. Williams says, if you think the Constitution is living and breathing, let’s play poker…..with living and breathing rules.
You beat me to it.
Just ask these people to cite where in the Constitution it said that women couldn’t own property.
I’m tired of that “3/5 human” crap too.
3/5 citizens for representation.
What a great post!
There are three parts of our Constitution that, by the very terms of the constitution, could not be amended under the final portion of Article V.
First, under Article V, the importation of new slaves could not be prohibited until 1808. Once that time expired, Congress immediately prohibited the importation of new slaves.
Second, the Constitution could not be changed to allow the imposition of an income tax until 1808. It took a little more than another century for that to be amended, which occurred in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
Third, no state may ever be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. Folks rail about how a half-dozen states have two senators, when populous states With 40 times more people also have only two senators, and will suggest that the Constitution be amended to address this inequality. However, by its very terms, the Constitution cannot be so amended. The solution is to create and ratify a whole brand new constitution, just as our Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation. But the current Constitution, by its very terms, cannot be amended to have any state lose its equal suffrage without its consent.
Thanks for the great comment in the post. It’s interesting to note that the law banning the importation of slaves was passed in 1807 so that it could take effect at the earliest moment possible. Signed, of course, by Thomas Jefferson.
I think that this was a clear presaging of the increasing revulsion towards slavery. If a particular institution is a good one why must it be protected? I would guess that the southern states were in a bind that they did not know how to resolve without crippling poverty. If memory serves, there was a thought that slavery would simply disappear over time. The issue of allowing slavery into the territories was the precipitating reason for the destruction of the Whig (“We Hope in God”) Party and the creation of the Republican Party. Lincoln campaigned on the promise to prevent the expansion of slavery into the territories, not on the promise of ending slavery. However, after years of the horrors of the Civil War, Lincoln sought emancipation.
“Under and original reading of the Constitution, Judge Barrett and I could not vote, own property, or enjoy the full protection of the law.”
I’m having trouble finding the articles that refer to qualifications to be a voter, property owner, or recipient of legal protection. Have I missed something?
And rightly amended into non-existence long before living memory.
Did you get un-friended or is your friend now less progressive? …presuming one or the other after that excellent lecture (that, by the way, I’m going to keep in my back pocket for applicable occasions!)?
Historically ignorant and contentious.
And a tacit admission that, as amended, they have nothing to object to so they are left with this.
And completely misunderstood. It wasn’t about “Blacks are less than human”. It was the abolitionists who wanted slaves to count not at all, and the slave-owners who wanted them counted 100%.
As I recall my 5th grade history, slavery was on the way out, until the invention of the cotton gin made it economically viable again.
That’s also my understanding.
And let us remember, the Emancipation Proclamation only feed those slaves in areas that were in a state of “rebellion.” It did nothing for the slaves in Maryland, Missouri, etc. They remained under the lash until Lincoln himself was a ghost.
Great post! I once believed voter referendum held promise as a path for change, until the perpetual referendum came along ( for example, the Irish question on abortion) and the Brexit referendum highlighted the difficulties in placing a substantive question on the ballot. As developments here, now cast doubt on the integrity of voter registration lists, voting processes, and vote counting, I can no longer fathom this alternative. Better even to have 5 deciding for 320 million than this!
Yes, I have seen “outrage” over this on social media. Nevermind that a legislative chamber where all states had equal representation (in theory, if not practice) was precisely the point. Can’t wait to see the constitution these folks draft. “On Equal Protection: Every post on Facebook shall receive no less than ten likes to make the user feel better.”
I’m not sure it was presaging, the revulsion was already there and some of those Framers carried it to Congress with them. Lincoln, in his Cooper Union speech, discerned the opinion of a majority of the Framers on the issue by looking at their voting records and public statements. It wasn’t divination, he did the research.
Edit: now to think of it, I think Lincoln made the case by vote records from Congress and various legislatures. A magnificent effort and speech.
Jackie Speier looks stupid because she is. However, the issue isn’t the issue. The issue is the revolution, and to discredit the Founders and all their works in American eyes to create supporters of the revolution. What Speier said is an echo of what is now being taught in the schools. When the Constitution is framed this way, fewer students will want to read it. For some of those who might, their vocabularies and thought processes are stunted by other aspects of their indoctrination process.
That is also my understanding on both the cotton gin and the scope of the Emancipation Proclamation.
But to the point of this whole post, Lincoln did also start and support the process of amending the Constitution to eliminate that horror.
Remember the “Northwest Ordinance of 1787,” which banned slavery north of the Ohio River.
The prohibition of slavery in the territory had the practical effect of establishing the Ohio River as the geographic divide between slave states and free states from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi River, an extension of the Mason–Dixon line. It also helped set the stage for later federal political conflicts over slavery during the 19th century until the American Civil War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
Dredd Scott had a bad lawyer as the law clearly made him and his wife free by the owner taking them to free territory. The case should never have gone to the Taney Supreme Court.
“Under and original reading of the Constitution, Judge Barrett and I could not vote, own property, or enjoy the full protection of the law. “
Leaving aside amendments, this fundamental point is wrong, as several have noted. I have long been impressed that the 18th-century founders did NOT restrict the franchise (or office holding) to men, or to property holders (debated but rejected).