The day isn’t over, but I’m willing to go out on a limb and predict that this is the stupidest thing I will read today. I’m not actually sure what it would mean to “strike” text that has already been nullified by subsequent amendments—pull out the original sheepskin and take a sharpie to it? Bonus points for the common but historically obtuse invocation of the 3/5 compromise. Recall, if you think the offensive aspect of this is that slaves were “only” worth 3/5 of a person, that it was southern slave owners who wanted them to be counted equally and northern abolitionists who objected to their being counted at all.
College Student Discovers Racism in Constitution, Vows Meaningless Action
April 17th, 2008 · 7 Comments
Tags: Stupid Shit
7 responses so far ↓
1 jonn // Apr 17, 2008 at 5:16 pm
We all come from Africa:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature2/index.html
2 Franklin Harris // Apr 17, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Actually, I’m always happy to see idiots who are just itching to be activists about something waste their time on utterly meaningless crusades.
3 Fin Fang Foom // Apr 17, 2008 at 6:37 pm
This is Mike Stark of the infamous 2006 Virginia Senate race incidents.
First, he isn’t a college student, he’s a UVA law student.
Second, he’s also probably in his early thirties. Age does not bring wisdom.
Please note that he does not represent the general type of my law school.
4 Erstwhile // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Mike Stark is, well, he’s not a smart man:
5 Jacob T. Levy // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Well, that’s all pretty dumb, but there are other legal and constitutional contexts in which amendments are written so as to amend the text to just the currently-operative portions. State constitutions are typically printed like this. It’s only because the US Constitution has been so rarely amended that it seems to make sense to include its whole textual history at once.
6 publius // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I agree with your broader point, but as I recall, the slaveowners were even more self-serving. They wanted slaves to count for purposes of the electoral college, but not to count at all for purposes of taxation.
7 von Laue // Apr 19, 2008 at 7:53 am
Er, did it have to be abolitionists who wanted slaves not to count, or just those from states without significant numbers of slaves?
Leave a Comment