It has been debated endlessly whether the constitution should be read literally, contemporaneously, in reference to ____. Really, it was a fairly well put together document. Solid effort, gold stars all around. But, given its quality, the constitution has been difficult to pull away from.
If you’ve ever seen what a group of kids spontaneously untethered by the rules of a game decide to do, it might offer some perspective on the coming years
It has been debated endlessly whether the constitution should be read literally, contemporaneously, in reference to ____.
Here’s an easy flowchart for that:
Does the literal reading support the dismantlement of democracy and/or the implementation of a theocratic state? If yes, then it should be read literally. Otherwise no.
This. Simple as. It’s a common bad-faith debating technique called ‘saying whatever random-ass thing makes the stupid people listening think I am right’.
I realize the sarcasm, but this was a major point of contention for decades after the passing of the founding fathers, even without power grabs. Technically, every political move is a power grab, but still. There was previously more sincerity to the line of thought
Because they view the morals America was founded on as fair and just with a few tweaks. People on one side think the white supremacy is a betrayal of the promise of equality, while others see it as based. American values can then be celebrated by both without them meaning the same thing. At the end of the day, promises of human rights and genocidal bigotry made America what it is, and so long as America is America, they always will.
I personally don’t give a shit what people 200+ years ago thought, nor do I care for dogma of today.
Why stop there? I bet Australopethecus Anamensis wasn’t supportive of trans rights as well as other modern things like having teeth beyond your 26th birthday.
In 1950, evolutionary biologist Ernst Walter Mayr said that all bipedal apes should be classified into the genus Homo, and considered renaming Australopithecus to Homo transvaalensis.[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
Why do we need support from people who died 250 years ago? Or 2000 years ago for that matter.
It has been debated endlessly whether the constitution should be read literally, contemporaneously, in reference to ____. Really, it was a fairly well put together document. Solid effort, gold stars all around. But, given its quality, the constitution has been difficult to pull away from.
If you’ve ever seen what a group of kids spontaneously untethered by the rules of a game decide to do, it might offer some perspective on the coming years
I dunno, I’d dock a star for the 3/5ths bit
That wasn’t until many years later.
The 3/5ths Compromise was made just months before the Constitution was written, in 1787.
Not true. It was written into the constitution as ratified in 1789.
Here’s an easy flowchart for that:
Does the literal reading support the dismantlement of democracy and/or the implementation of a theocratic state? If yes, then it should be read literally. Otherwise no.
This. Simple as. It’s a common bad-faith debating technique called ‘saying whatever random-ass thing makes the stupid people listening think I am right’.
I realize the sarcasm, but this was a major point of contention for decades after the passing of the founding fathers, even without power grabs. Technically, every political move is a power grab, but still. There was previously more sincerity to the line of thought
For the logical fallacies that are inherent to their message? I dunno
For the record Joan of Arc is fully supportive.
Because they view the morals America was founded on as fair and just with a few tweaks. People on one side think the white supremacy is a betrayal of the promise of equality, while others see it as based. American values can then be celebrated by both without them meaning the same thing. At the end of the day, promises of human rights and genocidal bigotry made America what it is, and so long as America is America, they always will.
I personally don’t give a shit what people 200+ years ago thought, nor do I care for dogma of today.
Why stop there? I bet Australopethecus Anamensis wasn’t supportive of trans rights as well as other modern things like having teeth beyond your 26th birthday.
I stand corrected!
Mind = blown