Sohh The Root ..... How You Feel About Writers of the Constitution/Bill of Rights Being Slaveholders

[newworldafro]

I see this great paradox up here and in cyberspace..............

If I'm wrong tell me I'm wrong.....I'm Trying Not To Generalize......some blacks will claim rights being trampled on with police brutality, but in same breathe will say a white person or black person talking about protecting free speech or gun rights is deemed racist and/or a c00n. Or better yet, ignore people that look like you approving things that are literally opposite of the Bill of Rights, yet have nothing to say or even claim only racists oppose these measures. I know part of the answer is the type of news being ingested.




You don't have to school me on the paradox in the writers, fighting for freedom from Britain with a pen and force in one hand, while simultaneously whipping, raping, and enslaving people that looked like me on the other hand. With that said, if the U.S. has no Bill of Rights, then police brutality is the least of your worries, cause essentially you have no legal standing to protect you from anything, think North Korea...and I'm equally


So my question is ................................... how do you feel about the Bill of Rights??? and those that wrote it?

A. Is it a white document, written by whites, for whites. They didn't write it for non-whites in the beginning, so why should I care about it now. Its an old and dusty piece of paper.

B. Or regardless of its foundation, it is the best document around for checking a wavering government. In other words, regardless of who is in power, the rights outlined stay enshrined. So a document that should be respected and protected all the way through, because it outlines the legal authority, threshold, and covenant the government has with the people, to basically provide a shield.

C. Whatever man ....

 

[↓R↑LYB]

fukk the constitution and the US government as a staff, record label, and a motherfukking crew

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The Constitution is based on 'White Supremacy'. 'The People....' identified in the document are ruling-class Anglo-Saxons/Europeans.​

 

[kp404]

fukk the constitution and the US government as a staff, record label, and a motherfukking crew

This is all that needs to be said in here. The Constitution was written to keep people fractured and Blacks, women, and Native Americans as non-citizens; yet 400 years later, this document is still supreme law; its illogical and ridiculous for anyone to make an argument that white supremacy doesn't exist when the damn Constitution itself is a slavery document. Amendments don't mean shyt if the actual document is still based in inequality.

 

[↓R↑LYB]

Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year
by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the
Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State
Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five
Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which
may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting
of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in
such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not
exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one
Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire
shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight,
Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and
Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority
thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall
have the sole Power of Impeachment.

I'd wipe my ass with that piece of paper

 

[Blackking]

lol.

 

[filial_piety]

Brilliant in their own ways, but hypocrites nonetheless. It's difficult to digest that they wanted the British to apply laws of humanity to them, but they themselves were refusing to apply it to the slaves that they owned.

That being said, slavery was a big issue in their day, but not a priority. Some say, that the constitution was written in a very broad way to provide the end of slavery with the necessary legal framework in later debates.


That being said, I vote B

 

[newworldafro]

So a day later 70% of yall say its an exclusively white man's document.......implying you don't care about the Bill or Rights, cause you assume it doesn't protect you.

So you have no speech, protest, religious freedom, no guns, no trial by jury, no probable cause, no cruel or unusual punishment, etc legal shield anymore........you say fukk it, its a 200+ year old CAC document...


So then what model of government or type of document do you suggest goes in its place? If anything?

 

[wet landscapes]

So a day later 70% of yall say its an exclusively white man's document.......implying you don't care about the Bill or Rights, cause you assume it doesn't protect you.

So you have no speech, protest, religious freedom, no guns, no trial by jury, no probable cause, no cruel or unusual punishment, etc legal shield anymore........you say fukk it, its a 200+ year old CAC document...


So then what model of government or type of document do you suggest goes in its place? If anything?

it's not that people don't care, they're just awknowledging the full context it was written in
we have and use those freedoms (eveon though they get violated at times) but knowing the full history, it's not something you can fully celebrate

 

[newworldafro]

This is a ridiculous argument and you know it. It was an exclusively white mans document until it was amended. The founders of the country were racists and slave owners.

This is the point I wanted someone else to say. Right, it has "evolved" to include every citizen.........seemingly......even though I recognize it is/has not always been done fairly or equally, but the blueprint is there. The last 10+ years has witnessed the outright shredding of its potency in numerous areas, for the sake of "security"......and this is where it gets funny....cause some people will say/claim/convey this is just an example of it "evolving". In other words, weakening the strength of the Bill of Rights, is the just the continual "evolution" of the document. ....


So does that mean cause it was written by slaveholders, we/I shouldn't feel like its "evolution" to include us/me shouldn't be preserved ......and respected ?

To the point, if you have no Bill of Rights, or its integrity is watered down to being unrecognizable, then what do yo have?

 

[newworldafro]

You're trying to call us out for not respecting a constitution that was written to keep us down. Yes it was amended but the same government that amended it made sure to keep black people down using other subversive routes.

I'm pointing out the paradox. It wasn't written for people that look like me, but it has "evolved" to be a legal protection for all citizens. Now its incrementally "evolving" all the way out of existence. I'm saying, should black folks, especially, feel some kind of way about this.

Police brutality is based on your rights...which are derived from the Bill of Rights. If police beat you in North Korea, you don't have a document to look to that says this is wrong.......other than the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

I'm saying/asking, in the 21st century, how should black folks feel about the potential of a non-existing Bill of Rights, considering its original intent?

 

[newworldafro]

http://www.thecoli.com/threads/sen-...against-the-patriot-act.323677/#post-13652496

 

[The D-List Vet]

It's all bullshyt to
Me.... The bill was made for Cacs mainly rich white cacs... Shout out to Dr.umar Johnson

 

[GPBear]

The way I see it, the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. But here's how they flipped it:

most people in the world...aren't white. Most people in the world...aren't men. Yet in America, propaganda has made it seem like blacks, latinos, asians are a "minority" when really, it was white guys all along.

So they make it seem that most people are white guys, and that it's obviously going to be mostly white dudes in power and that they should be in charge of protecting "the minorities". When in reality, they're the minority, blacks/asians/latinos should be able to be in power in order to protect themselves as opposed to finding some white dude to be their congressmen.


Therefore, the "minority," is White Men being protected against the strength of blacks, latinos, asians, and white women getting together as a group to run shyt



They're pretty open with what they're doing, "Wars for Democracy" "Freedom" "Patriotism" fukkers

 

[Professor Emeritus]

it's not that people don't care, they're just awknowledging the full context it was written in
we have and use those freedoms (eveon though they get violated at times) but knowing the full history, it's not something you can fully celebrate

I'd go a bit further than that.

This is the document that is thrown up as the great establisher of political freedom. Yet most of the people who wrote it were slaveowners. That's some bullshyt hypocrisy there. With that obvious deficit, how many other content deficiencies are in there? Why should we be treating it like the great brilliant Holy Scroll to celebrate and rely on 200+ years later?

(Aside - don't want to throw everyone under the bus. I think that John Adams and John Quincey Adams were anti-slavery, and maybe some others.)

On the other hand, it's the rule of law and the document we have. So I'd encourage everyone to use the shyt out of it. Know your rights, declare your rights, fight for your rights. Not because there's something holy or perfect about the document, but because it is a tool we have to work with.