Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Will President McCain Enforce the Thirteenth Amendment?
There are a lot of reasons to worry about the sort of Supreme Court justices that John McCain will nominate if he's elected president. But slavery isn't one of them, no matter what Whoopi Goldberg has to say about it. On The View this morning, after listening to McCain make an unusually comatose case for judges "who strictly interpret the Constitution," Goldberg asked, "Should I be worried about being a slave? ... Because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change."
McCain's response? "That's an excellent point." I don't know if excellent is the word I'd use. When conservatives complain about judges "legislating from the bench," they mean protecting rights that aren't explicitly listed in the Constitution, such as privacy (or liberty of contract or the right to educate your child in a private school). Unless McCain starts campaigning to pass a new amendment reinstating slavery, I think Whoopi can rest easy. Besides, if she had read Lysander Spooner or Frederick Douglass, she'd know that slavery was already illegal before the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Watch the whole sorry thing here.
Lefiti|9.12.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Who fucking wastes time watching the View or cares what Whoopie goldfuck says? Don't you have any standards here?
|9.12.08 @ 5:58PM|#
I think Barbara deliberately surrounds herself with co-hosts who
will make her look smart by comparison.
I understand there's a new one who isn't quite up to Elizabeth
Hasselbeck's intellectual level. Just Wow.
|9.12.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Wait, you mean a Presidential candidate didn't know enough about the constitution to simply say, "When I say strict constitutionalists I mean the ENTIRE constitution, amendments included." Shocked I say, Shocked.
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 6:04PM|#
Point the first:
Whoopi Goldberg is a comedian.
A comedian's primary job is to entertain and induce laughter by
pointing our absurdities or exaggerations that are not readily
apparent without there being a joke to point them out.
Non-reflective Constitution worship is absurd because the document
enshrined the ability to enslave persons. The joke points that out,
whether intentionally or not.
Point the Second:
When we have to wait for the hosts at The View or The
Daily Show to rough up a pol or two, because the MSM can't be
bothered, more important shit is wrong than whether Whoopi fucking
Goldberg's jokes betray an erudite constitutional analysis.
jtuf|9.12.08 @ 6:21PM|#
By Whoopi's logic, we should also worry about strict constitutionalists banning alcohol. Upholding the constitution means upholding it with the ammendments, like #13 and #21. A living constitution means banning marijuana with a tax. Slavery won't reapear under strict constitutionalist judges unless the entire country gets messed up enough to repeal the 13th ammendment. When judges believe in a living constitution, it could return if just 5 supreme court judges think it should.
|9.12.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Even if slavery came back tomorrow, Whoopi is so damn ugly and old no one would buy her anyway.
Devil\'s Avocado|9.12.08 @ 6:28PM|#
If you read Alan Keyes, you'd "know" abortion is already
illegal.
Of course, the SCOTUS disagreeing, as they disagreed with Douglass
and Spooner back in the day, is a pretty big practical
consideration you don't seem to be considerating.
Potts|9.12.08 @ 6:30PM|#
I'm with Elemenope, it's a sad state of affairs when the "real journalists" are so asleep at the wheel that we have to rely on daytime talk shows to throw some hardballs. As flat as Whoopi's quip might have been, I have to give them credit.
gmatts|9.12.08 @ 6:37PM|#
I don't really care to grapple with the ideas set forth by
Whoopi Goldberg, but I will take exception to the statement:
"Besides, if she had read Lysander Spooner or Frederick Douglass,
she'd know that slavery was already illegal before the ratification
of the Thirteenth Amendment."
Slavery was certainly allowed by the framers when the Constitution
was written and ratified. I don't understand how it's not plain
when the Constitution states:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited
by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and
eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not
exceeding ten dollars for each Person"
I can't just write it off as a coincidence that many states were in
the business of importing people(i.e. putting Africans into bondage
and forcing them to cultivate tobacco w/ out pay) and that, coupled
with this fact, the above passage can only seem to indicate that
the Constitution was, at best, neutral about slavery as a national
issue.
Douglas and Spooner could argue all day about whether or not
slavery SHOULD be allowed, but to argue that it expressly COULD not
be allowed doesn't pass a common sense reading of the Constitution
as it was originally written.
|9.12.08 @ 6:38PM|#
Regarding "legislating from the bench", Whoopi asked, "Did you
say that you wanted strict Constitutionalists?"
McCain answered, "No, I want people who interpret the Constitution
the way our Founding Fathers envisioned."
To me, that sounds like he was excluding the amendments ...
otherwise, the answer to that question would be, "Yes".
Or maybe he just doesn't listen to black people very well.
Raphael|9.12.08 @ 6:45PM|#
Her question shows how ridiculous and desperate the media has
become in this election.
Slavery, for god's sake.
srjenkins|9.12.08 @ 7:14PM|#
When conservatives complain about judges "legislating from the bench," they mean protecting rights that aren't explicitly listed in the Constitution, such as privacy (or liberty of contract or the right to educate your child in a private school).
When conservatives complain about judges "legislating from the
bench," they simply mean interpreting law in ways they don't like -
particularly if it looks liberal.
Case in point, how many conservatives concerned about "activist
judges" got wound up about Clarence Thomas in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?
Eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive
Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen
without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial
review. Who was that ninth judge, and why did they chose judicial
activism in such a clear violation of Fifth Amendment? And why did
he get a free pass from conservatives concerned about "judicial
activism"?
|9.12.08 @ 7:34PM|#
ELemenope-
Point the second: Point entirely well taken.
Point the First: Point not entirely well taken. Why not?
1. Whoopi Goldberg is not a comedian. She does not entertain and
she does not produce laughter.
2. She is entriely bereft of the nuance of which you write,
"inducing laughter by pointing [out] our absurdities or
exaggerations that are not readily apparent without there being a
joke to point them out." You hint at this yourself, "whether
intentional or not."
3. Oh, yeah, "Non reflective Constituion worship is absurd,"-them's
is fighting words. Don't worry though because I am beholden to the
non-aggression principle.
How about reflective constitution worship?
It is my understanding that Douglas argued that the constitution
does not endorse slavery. He argued that a purely literal, textual
reading of the constitution, without regard to the intent of the
framers or how the issue had been commonly understood, warranted
the conclusion that slavery was constitutionally protected. He
acknowledged that this intrepretation was not the only one.
Funny thing, every time I read the thing, I can't find the word
slavery.
|9.12.08 @ 8:07PM|#
Gmatts-
I beg to differ. First, have you thoroughly read the writings of
Douglas? How about his great July 4, 1852 address to the Rochester,
NY anti-slavery coalition? How about Spooner?
The reality is that the word slavery is not in the constitution.
There is no plain language stating that the ownership of Africans
shall be a protected right. Looking to the plain meaning of the
words contained in the document in question is constitutional and
statutory construction 101. Courts look to the plain meaning of the
words, usually first, in undertaking their interpretive task. Of
course it is not the only measuring stick for coming up with the
final interpretation, but it is basic, elementary and fundamental.
Justice Breyer is actually pretty good at explaining the types of
measuring sticks or interpretive questions that courts do and
should employ in interpreting a particular statutory or
constitutional text.
Sure, the views of Douglas and Spooner were not the norm by any
means. But there have been cases where courts have decided
statutory and constitutional interpretive questions solely upon the
basis of the plain, literal meaning of the words without resort to
the consideration of other questions such as the intent of the
framers or the testimony at a congressional hearing, etc.. In those
case, the courts will declare words to the effect that, "had the
legislature [or the framers] intended to say so and so, they would
have so provided."
My point is that Douglas and Spooner were not fools or idiots.
Sambo|9.12.08 @ 8:11PM|#
"Goldberg asked, "Should I be worried about being a
slave?"
Ain't you now bitch?
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 8:32PM|#
According to the plain and literal meaning of the words in the
constitution, I see no reason why the government can't tap your
phone lines whenever they damn well please.
In point of fact, that was Taft's reasoning in
Olmstead.
Which is why Constitutional literalism is dumb.
Sambo|9.12.08 @ 9:11PM|#
"Which is why Constitutional literalism is dumb."
Mapp V. Ohio wasn't the progeny of literalism?
|9.12.08 @ 9:15PM|#
Elemenope-
But that reasoning is upside down-given that the powers granted to
the gov are enumerated and defined there being no general power to
just legislate as they see fit and tapping my phone ain't one of
the enumerated powers.
Sure, my position is unless the power is spefically granted to the
gov, then too bad for the "there oughta be a law crowd" which, I am
sure you would agree, can often annoy you-maybe not quite as much
as me, though.
Yeah, we all "know" what they meant with Article IV, Section 2s,
"no person held for service or labor". I am not saying that I agree
with Douglas and Spooner, but I certainly do not consider them to
be intellectual lightweights, I trust that you do not either.
Moreover, if you were a judge in the 1850s presiding over a case to
determine a claim by the representatives of a Georgian slaveowner
under the Fugitive Slave act, and the lawyer for the runaway slave
made the textual argument that the constitution does not protect
slavery, please don't tell me that you would call his argument
absurd and return the runaway to bondage instead of liberating
him.
economist|9.12.08 @ 9:27PM|#
"Will McCain enforce the 13th amendment?"
Well, given that Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson didn't
enforce it, then I think it's a valid question. Of course, this
stems from my view that the draft is a form of state slavery,a view
which is controversial, to say the least.
|9.12.08 @ 10:05PM|#
I agree with you economist. We can quibble about slavery (slaves
don't get paid), but it's certainly involuntary servitude.
But here's the thing: mandatory military service most certainly was
not considered slavery under the original understanding that
existed when the Constitution, and later the 13th Amendment, were
drafted.
Good think the Constitution is a living document.
|9.12.08 @ 10:56PM|#
Mandatory military service is still not considered slavery today. No court ruled that the draft was unconstitutional, the government just decided to do away with it anyway.
|9.12.08 @ 11:04PM|#
joe,
I'm curious what you mean by living document. Does that give
legislators/litigators carte blanche for any policy they can give
even the most absurd justification for? I'm thinking here of the
abuses done in the name of the interstate commerce clause and the
unenumerated right to privacy. How does a living document advocate
draw the line to what is and is not constitutional?
Claudia Nodal|9.12.08 @ 11:08PM|#
I agree whole heartedly, I mean leftist and liberals believe
themselves to be the "intellectual", well read crowd. But more than
once I have been stunned with the utter ignorance in the so called
"Educated", do gooders. I just plead that these very intelligent
victimized academics inform themselves, just a bit...Pretty
please.
And, by the way, I am by no means a McCain supporter.
|9.12.08 @ 11:09PM|#
Bramblyspam's post sums it up nicely. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, of which conscription is a pretty clear example. I feel that any judge who allows the draft is failing to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment. Is there any cogent response to that besides "it's a living document"?
Sambo|9.12.08 @ 11:27PM|#
"Is there any cogent response to that besides "it's a living
document"?"
You won't hear one from me.
Sambo|9.12.08 @ 11:33PM|#
"Does that give legislators/litigators carte blanche for any
policy they can give even the most absurd justification for?"
Bussing anyone? I live in a city where 87% of the public school
attendees are kids of color, yet the government still imposes
bussing. How fucked up is that?
|9.13.08 @ 12:35AM|#
The actual words were "slave again?"
The proper response was:
"When were you a slave?"
Whatever his experiences in Vietnam, I doubt McCain has the balls
to nominate and support someone who believes in enforcing the
Constitution as written. He cares too much about what people such
as Goldberg think of him.
gmatts|9.13.08 @ 12:37AM|#
"The reality is that the word slavery is not in the
constitution. There is no plain language stating that the ownership
of Africans shall be a protected right."
I agree that the word "slavery" is not in the Constitution.
However, when you look at the passage I quoted is it not plain to
you who the "persons" mentioned are and what exactly the
"Importation" is in reference to? If you don't think it's slavery,
then what is being stated?
"My point is that Douglas and Spooner were not fools or
idiots."
I don't recall stating that I thought they were, nor did I mean to
imply that. Therefore I'm not sure exactly what it is that you "beg
to differ" with me on. All that I meant was that they were arguing
from a rather weak foundation. Smart people can, and do, do just
that all the time, especially when arguing law. Sometimes you draw
the short straw in an argument.
They were arguing for a position in the Constitution that, however
noble, simply did not exist. They were arguing for a Constitution
as they would have written it, but unfortunately they did not. And
those that did write and ratify it sadly allowed for certain people
to buy and own other human beings.
So that's why I took issue with Root's assertion that if I, or
Whoopi, just read Douglas and Spooner that I'd realize that slavery
was illegal before the 13th Ammendment was ratified.
dpsc:|9.13.08 @ 3:06AM|#
I tend to think that in some cases the constitution should be
interpreted in terms of modern norms. The conclusion I have come to
is that the Negro is not only fully human, but that he should be
allowed to own property and initiate legal action.
I admit that I came to this conclusion only after a great deal of
soul searching. It is possible that a Negro might one day run for
the Presidency of the United States. I cannot find anything in the
law which would prohibit him from doing so.
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 8:44AM|#
It is perfectly true that Repugnican leaders claim to be against
judicial activism, when in fact they only oppose it when the other
side does it. Does that mean that judicial activism is a
meaningless concept, and we shouldn't worry about it?
The Dumbocrat leaders claim to be agaisnt the culture of corruption
in Washintgon, but the fact is that they only object to corruption
when the other guys do it. Does this mean that corruption is a
meaningless concept, and we shouldn't worry about it?
cunnivore|9.13.08 @ 8:57AM|#
I absolutely agree with joe that the Constitution is a document that needs to be adapted to changing conditions from time to time...through the amendment process, requiring 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree, rather than just a black-robed meddler who gets the itch to "do the right thing".
Elemenope|9.13.08 @ 9:08AM|#
cunnivore --
So, then, you think it is necessary to pass a Constitutional
amendment *every time* a new piece of technology or new social
development alters the status quo in an unexpected way or exposes
latent ambiguities in constitutional principles?
Me, I like my constitution to stay a readable length.
|9.13.08 @ 9:22AM|#
ELemenope-
I'm curious. Please tell mne what you would have done if you were a
judge in the 1850s presented with the case I outlined in my 9:15 pm
post. I don't have to tell you that I would free the runaway citing
the douglas/spooner argument and also relying upon the proposition
that, even if one credits the argument that the constitution
protects slavery, that position is at odds with the fouding
principles, the Declaration of independence and the philosophical
underpinnings of the revolution. So, yes, I would base my ruling
not just on the plain, literal words in the constitution, but I
would also turn to the founding era, as a whole, and conclude that
the preservatrion of slavery was not an animating force driving the
rebellion/secession/founding.
|9.13.08 @ 9:28AM|#
What Mad Max and others on Obama's internet reaction staff fail to mention that McCain isn't the one to worry about. Obama's "national service" system is a clever euphemism for serfdom. And then there is Obama already proving he won't worry about the First or Second Amendment, so yeah McCain isn't the one to worry about here.
|9.13.08 @ 9:33AM|#
Whoopi is a slave to liberalism and left wing thinking. And she doesn't even know it...
Elemenope|9.13.08 @ 9:33AM|#
I take it you agree with me on Whoopi's talent?
Oh come on, she was *great* as Guinan on ST:TNG.
I'm curious. Please tell mne what you would have done if you
were a judge in the 1850s presented with the case I outlined in my
9:15 pm post. I don't have to tell you that I would free the
runaway citing the douglas/spooner argument and also relying upon
the proposition that, even if one credits the argument that the
constitution protects slavery, that position is at odds with the
fouding principles, the Declaration of independence and the
philosophical underpinnings of the revolution.
I don't believe I could have been a judge enforcing *that*
constitution. I'm sorry but the text leads one easily to believe
that:
1. They meant slavery when they were using all those cute
euphemisms about importation and "other persons" and odd
fractions.
2. The Fugitive Slave Law, such as it was, was constitutional under
the Commerce Clause
If I were on the bench, I'd have to rule as such. But I wouldn't be
on the bench. I'd be working the underground railroad.
It reminds me of a thought experiment i had in Corruption &
Public Policy class, where the professor asked me what I would do
if I were a border agent. I responded, in all honesty, I can't
answer the question because I could never be a border agent, and so
the subjunctive set of possible acts that
me-as-border-agent-would-do is empty.
|9.13.08 @ 9:33AM|#
Um...isn't this the same Whoopi who was reduced to starring in
"The New Hollywood Squares" or some other such tripe?
For my money, I'll still take Paul Lynde.
|9.13.08 @ 9:40AM|#
"Thats an excellent point" is management speak for 'you are am
idiot'. Its used by management when a subordinate makes a stupid
statement or asks a stupid question in a public setting and the
manager does not want to embarrass the individual by bringing
attention to their mistake.
After the remark, Woopie is beaming. I started laughing at how
clueless she is.
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 9:42AM|#
Chad,
"Mad Max and others on Obama's internet reaction staff"
If I'm on Obama's staff, where's my money? Did it get lost in the
mail? Please look into this for me. I'll make it worth your while -
I'll even have you removed from the Secret Democratic List of
Republicans to send to Guantanamo.
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Typical Demopublican stupidity - anyone who says anything mean about a Republican is obviously a Democratic plant, and vice-versa.
|9.13.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Isn't Obama the one proposing involuntary servitude with his mandatory service requirement for young adults?
|9.13.08 @ 10:04AM|#
So is the presidential oath of office (promising to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution) optional? I can't think of a more egregious example of blind Constitution worship.
The Monster|9.13.08 @ 10:21AM|#
Let us not forget that in the format of five "host(esse)s" and
one guest, and only one of the former being friendly to the latter,
the suspect tends to feel as if he's being grilled by the
rapid-fire questions. Several times, McCain had to beg to be
allowed to finish answering a question.
Given a more relaxed interview, I'd have hoped that I'd be able to
have worded things a bit differently. Rather than talking about the
founding fathers per se, use this sort of wording:
I want judges who will examine the Constitution and laws with the
mindset that the words in those documents mean what they meant when
they were written. Obviously, there is some room for interpretation
when technological advances come along, such as when the Army Air
Corps was converted into a separate Air Force, despite language in
the constitution authorizing Congress to create armies and a navy,
but no explicit wording about an air force, as airplanes did not
yet exist.
Then if Whoopie asked about "being a slave again", I'd tell her
that the Thirteenth Amendment makes slavery unconstitutional, so
she need not fear the judges I'll appoint. Only judges that think
it's a living document could somehow find a way to reinterpret the
plain language to put her "back" in chains, (as inner city radio
DJs exhort their listners will be the result of electing
Republicans, despite the fact that even when the GOP held the White
House and both houses of Congress, no law to enslave blacks was
introduced, much less passed or signed).
|9.13.08 @ 10:30AM|#
"'Thats an excellent point' is management speak for 'you are
am idiot'."
No I think that you are thinking of "That's an excellent
question".
I think McCain was sincere. He said, "I understand your point"
first which is human-speak for "You didn't communicate very well
but I know what you are getting at". What he was doing was taking a
charitable interpretation of her miscommunication to mean something
valid. He then said it was an excellent point, referring to the
charitable interpretation.
Her exact quote was.
"Should I be worried about being a slave. Would we return to
slavery. Because certain things in the Constitution happened that
had to change."
Which McCain charitably interpreted to be a complaint about the
constitution as originally written and signe by the
framers.
It's clear that Whoopi isn't too bright and doesn't understand what
strict constitutionalist believe. However McCains statement about
interpreting the constitution as the framers envisioned can
certainly be uncharitably interpreted as Whoopi did.
Goldberg was using an intellectually dishonest tool of
argumentation, uncharitable interpretaion of your opponent, to put
McCain on the spot. McCain parried her with a charitable
interpretation of her position.
|9.13.08 @ 10:44AM|#
LOL, McSame is a complete idiot! Lie after lie, Lies on top of
lies yet sheeple still lap it up right from his hand. I just dont
see how anyone could be so ignorant.
Jiff
www.anonymize.us.tc
KenK|9.13.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Muslims are enslaving blacks right now, today.
I suppose it's better than killing all the black men and raping the
black woman, but it's still sad.
But talking about that isn't PC.
|9.13.08 @ 11:22AM|#
""Thats an excellent point" is management speak for 'you are an
idiot'."
Yes, the same as when a southern woman says of another, "Well,
bless her heart."
Translation: "Screw that g.d. f bitch."
|9.13.08 @ 11:38AM|#
Does anyone really care about Karen Johnson's inanities?
Send in the clowns, Whoopi...
|9.13.08 @ 11:52AM|#
It's a shame that the 13th amendment is all that's keeping
Whoppi Goldberg out of a cotton field.
Asses that dumb usually make great fieldhands.
|9.13.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Wittingly or not, I think Whoopie was making fun of a bit of carelessness on McCain's part. He said he wanted judges to interpret the constitution as our founders intended. Whoopie gave him an opportunity to correct himself and say it should be interpreted as the framers intended. Instead he let the moment get away from him.
|9.13.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Actually, both candidates plan to implement some kind of involuntary servitude national service program.
|9.13.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Who names their kid "Whoopi"?
Hello, Whoopi? Most Americans today didn't even have ancestors here
in the US when slavery was happening.
Give that tired subject a BIG REST and move on.
It has ZERO relevance to ME....
Goldberg's comments, viewpoints, and race baiting are huge
setbaacks to a quaint notion as "progress"...
Methinks she is a self serving blowhard, along the lines of the
good Reverend Al... The simple reason is that if there was racial
harmony,as most Americans would prefer, rather than racial division
and strife, the good Reverend and the likes of Whoopi would be out
of jobs, and out of money...
Will we never be able to live without reference to slavery?
Why not try a real job where blacks and whites work together side
by side actually doing great things for America, and the world,
like being a cop, fireman, soldier, sailor, IBM, or Cisco
worker.
|9.13.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Just thought I'd weigh in. "A living Constitution" was first
promoted in the Oval Office by Woodrow Wilson. He used it to get
the country into war, create goon squads, trample on the civil
liberties of American citizens, and create both a socialist planned
economy and the world's first propaganda ministry.
"Strict constructionist" does not mean "textual literalist".
Burning down straw men is fun, but
|9.13.08 @ 12:40PM|#
"Who names their kid "Whoopi"?"
No one. "Whoopi" changed her name to "Whoopi".
She also had four abortions or more.
She is not worth listening to except if your a nuts and sluts*
student.
"Nuts and sluts" a term used for pschy 101.
|9.13.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Sadly, McCain couldn't say, "are you serious you dumb fucking dunce." Hence the dumb as shit response.
|9.13.08 @ 1:06PM|#
"Should I be worried about being a slave?"
Proper response:
"Only to your own ignorance of what is in the Constitution and you
own predjudice against Republicans"
cunnivore|9.13.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Me, I like my constitution to stay a readable
length.
There's no point in having it a readable length if its application
is totally dependent on the whim of a federal judge. I'm not
talking about changes in technology (ie, the 2nd amendment applying
to revolvers, the 1st applying to radio and TV, etc). The Ninth
amendment is nice and terse, I agree. To understand why it protects
a right to abortion, but does not protect the right to advertise
your (legal) products, well that requires several years of
constitutional law study, a limber mind to handle the necessary
mental gymnastics, and the knowledge of whether it's being
interpreted by a Bush apointee or a Clinton apointee. That's the
epitaph of your living constitution.
If a change is really that necessary, there should be no problem
getting the 2/3 in Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree lickety
split, especially considering modern communication technology. The
problem is, a lot of the innovations by the living constitution
proponents have been the sort that would have no chance of passing
as constitutional amendments.
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 1:27PM|#
"Only judges that think it's a living document could somehow
find a way to reinterpret the plain language to put her 'back' in
chains . . ."
You see, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865, there
was a lot of emotionalism in the country about so-called "slavery"
and the associated Civil War. So they had a whole lot of hangups,
and the 13th Amendment reflects this.
But we have a *living* constitution, so we shouldn't be bound by a
literalistic interpretation of the 13th Amendment, reflecting as it
does the presuppositions of a specific period in history.
The Amendment was written in the light of nineteenth-century
individualism, with its obsession with so-called "freedom" and its
rejection of basic social concerns which we know today need to be
dealt with by the government.
With our up-to-date, modern, sociological understanding of the
world, we can see that slavery can be a good thing. It gets people
working in the outdoors, contributing to the economy instead of
sitting inside playing video games and becoming obese.
So I would suggest a "collective" interpretation of the Thirteenth
Amendment. Under this interpretation, the right to be free from
slavery is not an *individual* right. Instead, the government
(state or federal, but preferably federal) can impose
reeducation-through labor on socially undesirable elements such as
the bourgeoisie, the kulaks, racial and religious minorities,
etc.
|9.13.08 @ 2:11PM|#
There may be no mention of slavery in the Constitution, but
there was explicit inequality -- the infamous "three-fifths" clause
in Article I, Section 2:
"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."
This is not news.
Whoopi may have been wrong about "slavery" but she was right that
racist inequality was a part of our vaunted document from the
beginning.
Alice Finkelstein|9.13.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Whoopi was saying the same thing about Bush both times he was elected. In fact, wasn't Whoopi planning to move out of the US if Bush was elected? Twice!!!????
|9.13.08 @ 2:48PM|#
How many Representatives,of slave-holding states would there be,if slaves were counted as equal citizens?
|9.13.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Cunnivore-
I agree but the plain meaning of the ninth amendment and the intent
of its architect, Madison, along with the experiences of the
framers and the philosophical underpinnings of the
revolution/secession/founding all militate in favor of the
conclusion that the advertisement of one's goods or services merits
the same constitutional protection as aborting a fetus. Namely,
neither the mob, nor its democratically elected representatives
have any interest in such matters.
Elemenope|9.13.08 @ 3:37PM|#
libertymike --
But the Ninth gives by itself no indication of what matters *are*
to be beyond the mob's reach, or the state's (if we are to be so
crass as to take them as synonymous), for that matter.
This is my problem with the Ninth; it identifies an end, and yet
there is no means in sight. At least, no means by which the
electorate (even in substantial part) may be satisfied.
cunnivore|9.13.08 @ 4:32PM|#
Tony,
That's exactly right. Not to mention the advantage it would have
given the slave states in the Electoral College.
I'm no fan of Abe Lincoln in general, but if the South had enough
votes in the EC to keep him from getting elected in 1860, slavery
would've lasted a lot longer.
Pendulum|9.13.08 @ 5:53PM|#
I agree but the plain meaning of the ninth amendment and the
intent of its architect, Madison, along with the experiences of the
framers and the philosophical underpinnings of the
revolution/secession/founding all militate in favor of the
conclusion that the advertisement of one's goods or services merits
the same constitutional protection as aborting a fetus. Namely,
neither the mob, nor its democratically elected representatives
have any interest in such matters.
Why doesn't it mean that the federally elected representatives have
no interest in such matters, while state mobs and legislatures may
interest themselves as much or as little as they would like?
|9.13.08 @ 10:16PM|#
Thomas Jefferson | September 12, 2008, 6:29pm | #
Terry, I'd hit it.
Thomas, I did. Don't bother.
Ben1|9.13.08 @ 10:40PM|#
Here is the 13th amendment:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Now, as you can clearly see, slavery is available to the
feds under the condition that the slave has been "duly convicted"
of a "crime."
Before you even think about responding, think about who
makes most license plates, and under what conditions, and for what
recompense.
Now consider that the feds have, in fact, shown no
reluctance to interpret the constitution any way they want (witness
the inversion of the commerce clause, the blatant ignoring of the
prohibition against ex post facto laws, the various travesties
enacted in direct opposition to 80% of the bill of rights.)
Do you really think that slavery is "off the table", or
that Lysander Spooner, insightful as he was, held an opinion that
would affect such a determination by those wielding absolute power
in this country?
JB|9.14.08 @ 3:20AM|#
Who would want Whoopie as a slave? I mean shit you would have to pay me serious money to have her anywhere near my property.
jtuf|9.14.08 @ 8:54AM|#
Ben, your | September 13, 2008, 10:40pm | point was good. Without freedom in general, law makers can circumvent any given constitutional protection. Theorectically, a new law could force someone to work without pay in a factory if he is convicted of eating transfats. More realistically, we have manditory volunteering in several high schools.
MJ|9.14.08 @ 10:13AM|#
"Do you really think that slavery is "off the table"..."
Yes, if we make the judges interpreting it are strict
constituionalists and not hacks who think it is a "living"
document.
The Founder's deliberately chose to kick the can down the road on
slavery because they knew they could not come to an agreement on a
constitution and resolve the issue at the same time. For better or
worse, their priority was writing a document all the states could
live with at the time. That's why slavery is only mentioned
euphemistically and no direct endorsemnt or condemnation is given
to the practice. Compromise is necessary in politics but it is not
a pretty thing, and can get very ugly at times.
turtledove|9.14.08 @ 10:15AM|#
The whole point of Whoopi's comment was that if we're interpreting the Constititution "as the founding father's intended" -- we'd have any number of messed up things to worry about. Like slavery and no right to vote for women. Which, if you're asking me, seems like what a lot of these right wing nuts actually want. Whoopi gets to the beating heart of what "AmeriKKKa" is all about here. The Constitution is a living document and the nutjobs interpretation of it is just as much an interpretation as that of the judges who interpreted it in Roe v. Wade. Seems spot on.
JoeBob|9.14.08 @ 10:40AM|#
In a previous job I administered a feedback tool for management. From time to time employees would ask some horrifically stupid questions, you know, like, "I work in manufacturing. How come I'm not allowed to telecommute?" Whenever management tackled questions like this they'd start with, "That's an excellent question."
|9.14.08 @ 10:53AM|#
The whole point of Whoopi's comment was that if we're
interpreting the Constititution "as the founding father's intended"
-- we'd have any number of messed up things to worry about. Like
slavery and no right to vote for women.
The 13th and 19th amendments -- added according to the process the
Founding Fathers wrote into Article V -- address those issues. So
interpreting the Constitution the way they intended means we also
follow the amendments.
MJ|9.14.08 @ 10:57AM|#
"The whole point of Whoopi's comment was that if we're
interpreting the Constititution "as the founding father's
intended"
When somebody talks about what the "Founder's intended" they mean
to interpret the Constsitution by things that are actually written
in the Constitution and that includes the duly ratified amendments.
The notion that means excising the amendments is sand-poundingly
ignorant, or disingenuous sophistry.
Finster|9.15.08 @ 5:27AM|#
American Government 101
After watching the entire episode I was struck that McCain was
completely mistaken on the basics of our system and how it
operates.
McCain: "My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States
is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution
of the United States and does not legislate nor invent areas that
are responsibilities, according to the Constitution, of the
legislative branch."
Well that's just wrong! And I'm shocked that nobody is talking
about it. Maybe its because most Americans have a very slim notion
themselves about how our system works.
He's partly right, that the Supreme Court is not empowered to
legislate. But any reasonable person would assume that after over
20 years in the Senate he would understand perfectly that the SC
*interprets* the constitution, not "enforces". The enforcement duty
is on the Executive branch of government, which is of course headed
by President, who swears to uphold the decisions of the
Court.
Either he's really dumb or the stress of the campaign is starting
to get to him. I guess it's the latter and that he was merely
confused and fumbling. Which worries me even more seeing how POTUS
has to be about the most stressful and demanding job on Earth.
|9.15.08 @ 9:10AM|#
Whoopi Goldberg was remarking on a comment John McCain made about wanting judges to interpret the constitution as our Founding Fathers meant it to be. When they wrote and enacted it it totally excluded blacks because they were slaves at the time. She actually had a point.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245