The Constitution is racist & bias

Let me see if I understand what your saying.

The Constitution was written during a time where racism was acceptable. Meaning, the Constitution is inherently racist?

While I don't completely agree with it. You do have a point.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

There is an adverse impact here that is imprisoning black people at a far, far higher rate than any other race. Its a fact. You cannot hide it, even by cooking the numbers and pretending you don't have hispanic people in prison.

I really don't understand why it's so hard for people to believe that black folks break the law more than anyone else.

It's a fact. You cannot hide it.

And if you don't agree, then what was the purpose of your prelude? You make it sound like our laws are written in a way that's almost impossible for black people to obey.

did you know the original phrase was "Life , liberty and property"

The constitution and bill of rights are so UN racist, the founding fathers changed that, to "Life , Liberty , and the pursuit of happiness" so that people couldnt claim they had a constitutional right to own SLAVES.


Another post by someone who doesnt know history...........

a reply to: Bone75

It isn't a fact that black people commit more crimes. They are just caught more often, because they are targeted more often.

a reply to: Bone75

? Really?

So your assertion is that black people just tend towards criminal activity? And you don't understand why people don't just agree with you?

FWIW, it is NOT a fact, and there is no need to hide it.

The purpose of my prelude was to point out that using the Federal Governments own thresholds, the Criminal Justice System is racist.

a reply to: SailorJerry

The constitution and bill of rights are so UN racist,

Do you think so?

Native American Indians where not allowed U.S. citizenship for 135 years after The Bill Of Rights was invoked.

I would call that bloody racist, wouldn't you ?

originally posted by: SatansPride
a reply to: Woodcarver

i keep gettin told about the spellin & stuff lol but i really do think that our language is changing at such an exponential rate with idk btw wtf & emojis that its creating another language in itself.,( bout time, its been forever since a language change in the world lol). i guess my point is wishins for quittin lol but we did write the constitution in a time where bad stuff happened to good people & the public adored it. like if i roll a snowball down a hill just cause i sugar coat it dont mean its gettin any smaller, like the constitution wih it intent of how its written kinda thing i guess

It is not just the spelling. It is the sentence structure and word choice that makes it hard to decipher. Out of curiosity, and in an attempt to understand, could i ask your approx location, age, education? I think that could add a lot of context to your point.

a reply to: SatansPride

That is sedition!!

Besides there are way to "rewrite" the Constitution. You know that right? That is how we ended up with prohibition and mobsters (Hint, legalize it!). The problem is not the willingness or desire to make law correct and right, the problem is of one item alone, money. That is why there are lawyers in the first place! Do you really believe that a law that would say hurt the lawyers in both the House and Senate (like term limits, contribution limits, torte reform, etc.), would actually pass?

And that is just sensible law! Try to do anything social or dictate behavior, like racism, is near impossible. Ever hear of Brown versus the Board of Education? That was 1954!! That had to go to the Supreme Court (which is just regular court with tomatoes and sour cream!! -thnx Team Coco-), just to say what was and what was not legal. That set the tone for MLK and the 1960s. Here we are, 2018, and those unresolved conflicts, those loopholes that cowards march their Nazi flags behind, are still here!

Maybe, if we act just, if we truly become human beings, if we can, as a society, admit we are dumb and here are the laws to prove it, then maybe, one day. People have had dreams about that day! They have seen the Promised Land! We've fallen back down the mountain.

War is not the best solution. Nothing would be proven by a "civil" war. Then one day, in the future, they too shall tear down the statues and monuments because they will realize that our great grandfathers were not so great.

a reply to: SatansPride

Western movies are not documentaries--they're theatrics.

I sincerely hope that you do no believe that how the "Wild West" is portrayed in movies is actually how it was.

And FYI, we certainly have a right to bear arms more than guns...hell, even my concealed-carry permit lists numerous arms, like a sword and nunchaka. I can own a catapult, and even tanks and other things like flamethrowers and grenade launchers.

The difference is that some of those are harder and more expensive to own than others.

Where do you get your information about the U.S.?

a reply to: alldaylong

Not to mention the legal declaration that a slave would be counted as 3/5 of a man

originally posted by: SatansPride
We all know the constitution & u.s gov. was created & established decades before we ended the paying of killing of any other race beside white. Our decloration of independence states all men are equal, while they got paid for killing every none white it states "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

All men are created equal, hmmm....until we decide they are not anymore !

We "relabel" these men "felons" when we want to deny them the right to vote,

and we "relabel" these men "enemy combatants" when we want to deny them all constitutional rights.

So, basically, it's about "naming" these men. Are they really men? Or, are they "felons" and/or "enemy combatants" ?

Not every man gets equal treatment.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
We "relabel" these men "felons" when we want to deny them the right to vote.

I know the Texan and I agree on this one, that convicted felons, one they're time is served, should have their rights restored.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes sir. If a man isn't free, why is he out of prison?

ETA: its my assertion that the term "felon" was a way to keep black men from voting or owning weapons. If it isn't, the net effect is adverse impact.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The sad part here is that a man is not a man in the eyes of the government.
He is a black man, a hispanic man, a caucasian man... etc.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
ETA: its my assertion that the term "felon" was a way to keep black men from voting or owning weapons.

Watch some of the Second Amendment advocates get wound up on that one.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: SailorJerry

The constitution and bill of rights are so UN racist,

Do you think so?

Native American Indians where not allowed U.S. citizenship for 135 years after The Bill Of Rights was invoked.

I would call that bloody racist, wouldn't you ?

Citizenship and the bill of rights are not the same thing. nice deflection though

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yup.

a reply to: alldaylong

Not ""Racists""... it just took colonialism and genocidal acts to achieve it

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: SailorJerry

The constitution and bill of rights are so UN racist,

Do you think so?

Native American Indians where not allowed U.S. citizenship for 135 years after The Bill Of Rights was invoked.


I would call that bloody racist, wouldn't you ?

When the U.S. Constitution was written, Native American Tribes were treated as sovereign nations when it came to how to handle trade and relations with Native American people. There were seen more as independent nations than they were seen as part of the United States. However, those attitudes changed over the years as the Europeans expanded westward.

www.flashpointmag.com...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: alldaylong

Not to mention the legal declaration that a slave would be counted as 3/5 of a man

This is no longer part of the Constitution, so it doesn't really apply to the OP's criticisms of the Constitution today.


And it's not really accurate to say they were counted as 3/5 of a person. It was actually worse than that; they were counted as property, not a person. However, slave states wanted greater representation in congress, so the "Three-Fifths Compromise" was enacted.

On one hand, it could be said that the Three-Fifths Compromise gave slave states representation commensurate with the number of people (free and slave) in those states, but on the other hand, slaves could not vote, so the slave states actually had a disproportionate number of representatives relative to the number of eligible voters.

a reply to: SatansPride

Maths and lightening and cane furniture and coloring-in pencils are also racist.

Don't even get me started on The All Blacks.

I nominate myself to re-write the racism right out of that insane document, you'll love the new improved Constitution 2.0, it'll look exactly the same as the old one but it'll be prettier, with nicer fonts, hyperlinks and full HD pics.