What part(s) are specifically detrimental to blacks?

 

You need to read about the drafting of the Constitution.

 

The Constitution had a 3/5s clause in. When it came to representation for the House of Reps, each state was granted a 1 rep for X number of people. Slaves counted as 3/5s of a person when it came to calculating how many representatives each state would get. It has been argued that this was a compromise over a very hot issue at the time. Many of the Northern delegates detested slavery. Many in the South did as well, but their economy relied so heavily on it that they couldn't just release them (scary thinking like that now, seriously a black eye on the legacy of some otherwise great men.)

 

I think that almost every person that had a say in the Constitution knew that slavery was going to be outlawed. I think that a lot of them either didn't have the pull to fight that battle, or didn't have the backbone to do it. Either way, our first Congress did exactly what our Congress does now. They punted a very hot topic to a later generation.

 

You can't look at the Constitution and not include the amendments that have followed. Those are just as much a part of the original document as if they had been added originally.

Yes, America has been wrong and often with blacks. But that's why we have amendments to the constitution.

A helpful thing for this discussion would be for you to point out the problems you see with the system in 2014 for blacks. I'm not saying you're wrong, but at least lets address the ones you take issue with.

 

This is where the discussion gets tricky. I'm not going to be able to produce documents or the 'hard evidence' needed to have a convincing argument.

 

I can say that in 2014 you still get more jail time for a first offense of possessing 3 rocks of crack cocaine while having enough powder cocaine to make 30 rocks of crack cocaine will get you probation more often than not on a first offense.

 

That's one off the top of my head.

Yes, America has been wrong and often with blacks. But that's why we have amendments to the constitution.

A helpful thing for this discussion would be for you to point out the problems you see with the system in 2014 for blacks. I'm not saying you're wrong, but at least lets address the ones you take issue with.

 

This is what I was asking, albeit worded poorly.

This is where the discussion gets tricky. I'm not going to be able to produce documents or the 'hard evidence' needed to have a convincing argument.

 

I can say that in 2014 you still get more jail time for a first offense of possessing 3 rocks of crack cocaine while having enough powder cocaine to make 30 rocks of crack cocaine will get you probation more often than not on a first offense.

 

That's one off the top of my head.

 

That's one of the first that always comes to my mind. My sociology professor first pointed that out to us my frosh year of college. Makes you think.

This is where the discussion gets tricky. I'm not going to be able to produce documents or the 'hard evidence' needed to have a convincing argument.

 

I can say that in 2014 you still get more jail time for a first offense of possessing 3 rocks of crack cocaine while having enough powder cocaine to make 30 rocks of crack cocaine will get you probation more often than not on a first offense.

 

That's one off the top of my head.

 

That's a state law issue, not the Constitution.

This is where the discussion gets tricky. I'm not going to be able to produce documents or the 'hard evidence' needed to have a convincing argument.

 

I can say that in 2014 you still get more jail time for a first offense of possessing 3 rocks of crack cocaine while having enough powder cocaine to make 30 rocks of crack cocaine will get you probation more often than not on a first offense.

 

That's one off the top of my head.

Okay, that may indeed be a very valid point. This is the sort of thing I'm getting at. I don't necessarily need documents to back up what you think are problems. I think discussion is important, though. It needs to start somewhere. Here is as good a place as any.

That's a state law issue, not the Constitution.

To be fair, I did ask about the system, not just the constitution.

That's a state law issue, not the Constitution.

 

I'm more or less referring to what I call the system and not the constitution specifically.

Okay, that may indeed be a very valid point. This is the sort of thing I'm getting at. I don't necessarily need documents to back up what you think are problems. I think discussion is important, though. It needs to start somewhere. Here is as good a place as any.

 

Truth.

How can a document which over the years has been continuously updated and arguably improved upon with constitutional amendments become outdated? If the constitution were written in stone you would have a valid agreement but since it is a living document, it is constantly evolving over time.

Your view is oddly liberal. Scalia says the Constitution is a "dead document."

Your view is oddly liberal. Scalia says the Constitution is a "dead document."

 

Scalia likes to wax poetically.

I don't think the crack vs coke reference is accurate about KY. Guru, rocket or mexitucky might be able to answer that. I believe many states have changed that but I don't know that as fact.

And these same people think this way, this was on a few of their websites/ pages:

And they put out this garbage, including taking the word of ISIS , lol.

Your view is oddly liberal. Scalia says the Constitution is a "dead document."

 

I am guessing Scalia was referring to it in a different context. Don't see how you consider a document designed to be able to be amended as a dead document. Now, if he was referring to the constitution and it related amendments saying they are dead and cannot be considered relative to the whims of whoever is interpreting it, I agree with him.