There are persons, and there are persons. True, the framers of the constitution recognized blacks as ‘persons’, but they did not, as you imply, recognize them as the same ‘type of person’. In other words, it’s exactly like the abortion debate, where (most) everybody will grant that the unborn child is a human being, but not a person. In the same way, slaves were considered a person, but not equal in personhood to white people. In other words, they were not considered the type of person that deserved the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.

-HP
True, “person” is a social construct and not a scientific classification or term. However, the US constitution, which means its framers (some of whom owned slaves), recognized Black slaves as “persons;” that is very clear and undisputed. So again, your analogy is a poor one. For even the slave owners recognized Black slaves as persons, even if they deemed the person who weren’t entitled to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. You see, their status of personhood was never in question. Nothing you wrote will alter that fact.

No, the science of the time recognized them as human beings, not as persons. The definition of personhood, as I am sure you know, has a philosophical basis, not a scientific one. And based on the philosophy of the time, black ‘persons’ were not considered equal to ‘persons’, just like todays philosophy that dictates unborn human beings as not equal persons to born children.

There is no way that the designers of the US Con could have conceivably known which moral issues would be considered by the Court. Which moral issues were “not the original intent of the constitution” and which were?

I clarified my point earlier, with this statement, “You see, I am not against the Supreme Court doing its job. I am just against the Supreme Court taking newly arrived at morals, morals that many people disagree on, and taking them as true, as fact, and than using that to decide what is constitutional and what is not”.

As far as judicial activism goes, I am not arguing that conservative justices are perfect, only that they are the less of two evils.

-HP
Whoa. *Fans the smoke the belched from ears*

I disagree. Even if the slave maters argued that slaves were not persons they were going against the science of the time and the US Constitution. The US Constitution recognized the Black slave as a person on two separate occasions. So, there was no scientific question as to that, whereas science does not recognize the human zygote to be a person.

“As far as moral issues and the courts, no I am not against the supreme court deciding all moral issues, only those moral issues that are not the original intent of the constitution.”
-HP

WTF? There is no way that the designers of the US Con could have conceivably known which moral issues would be considered by the Court. Which moral issues were “not the original intent of the constitution” and which were?

“Conservative justices, on the other hand, believe in the ‘originalist’ judicial philosophy. They believe that a law means exactly what it meant when it was written. It does not evolve over time.”
-HP
Well, it was Conservative justices that suspended the First amendment during war time (WWI). Where in the Con does it say or is implied that the right to free speech is suspended in time of war?
This is where I get confused. So, which decision was constitutional Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education? Why is separate but equal ok at one time but not in another?

“Clearly we can agree that at the time the constitution was written the “no state abridging the priveledges of citizens nor depriving liberty” clauses did NOT mean that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.”
-HP
Do you have the debates to support that? Did they also mean that Blacks and Native Americans should not be derived liberty? Clearly, they did not. So, I guess it’s time to break out the leg-irons. While my knowledge of who law works in this country I think your understanding is even shaker than mine.

I am unfamiliar with that term; please provide a definition of “constructionist justices.”

“You are opposed to legislating from the bench, verdad?”
-W.NM

Of course, that is not their charge.

I’ve missed you. But as a person who gets all swamped in school work as well, I understand.

No, ahora no necesito ninguna websites, yo estoy poniendo el ‘conservative familia’ en pause, por lo menos hasta que soluciono algunas de estas otras problemas que tengo orita. Like this spam filter problem. I’ll let you know though, thanks!!

Don’t be a stranger, stop by whenever you can.

Que Paso? Sorry I hadn’t been around in a few weeks, I am just finished with finals. Whew, I have a whole 2 weeks off until I start again, that is if I get accepted to one of the programs I applied to in May. Otherwise, I may have to wait until spring.

It looks like you have a “hot” topic going on aqui, pero yo vuelvo. Como es la Familia Cons.? Necesite mas sites?

Observer #18,, does that mean you favor strict constructionist justices? You are opposed to legislating from the bench, verdad?

I have answered your argument, I have answered it several times, to which you refuse to rebut it. So here, so were very clear, let me give you the contradiction in the liberal argument, abortion.

In abortion there is no neutral sides, either the unborn child is a person deserving of all human rights or it is not. To a pro-lifer, like the slavery debates of the past, you are not being tolerant, you are forcing your views onto a third party. Can you please address this?

But here, lest you accuse me of being unable to seperate abortion, let me give you another example, of what I mean by mutually exclusive morals. Lets say that tomorrow I formed a group, a group that likes to have sex in public. Not just missionary, but all sorts of various other acts. And we were disgusted by the current laws prohibiting us from doing this, so we tried to change the laws.

When we encountered those opposed to allowing the law changes, we immediately invoked your argument, “don’t enforce your morality on me”. Would that be a fair response?

I say no, no because changing those laws are not just affecting them and their group, but society at large. In other words, you are affecting the environment of those opposed to you and where their children grow up. Laws affect peoples moral upbringing, and also what goes on in public affects everyone around them. So there is no ‘tolerant’ moral system, all moral systems are ‘intolerant’ in so much as they affect society around them.

So the question is how to settle these mutually exclusive views, views that everybody has a right to have? That is the question here, not whether one is more tolerant than the other.