88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Not sure it specifically forbids slavery either, thus the 13th amendment.

Not sure it specifically forbids slavery either, thus the 13th amendment.


“Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits,” Thomas writes. Working from this principle, Thomas insists that the petitioners in the case “have in no way been deprived” of their liberty.


It doesnt, but if black people fall under the definition of "men" then enslavement of black people would be incompatible with the Declaration of Independence
True, just saying from a legal standpoint, it would be difficult to argue that slavery was prohibited under the Constitution especially given that the authors of the Constitution owned slaves. Seems the founding fathers were intentionally vague on this in the hope that future legislation would end the practice.The constitution EXPRESSLY states that not all the inalienable rights are stated in its body
Yes, but the Declaration of Independence isn't law.
True, just saying from a legal standpoint, it would be difficult to argue that slavery was prohibited under the Constitution especially given that the authors of the Constitution owned slaves. Seems the founding fathers were intentionally vague on this in the hope that future legislation would end the practice.

Like I said "men" isn't anywhere in the Constitution that I can find, instead it refers to "persons" who can be enslaved.The Declaration of Independence isn't law, but like I said, my whole premise assumes black people fall under the term "men" in the constitution. Black people didn't have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms, due process, equal protection, etc.
You have to look at the DOI/Bill of Rights holistically, slaves obviously did not have the protection of the Constitution. You can't just pick out random parts or omissions and claim that they did not forbid slavery, the practice of slavery itself and the rights denied to the slaves (if the slaves are "men" under the constitution) were in clear violation of the Bill of Rights
Can someone please explain to me what the fukk is the point he is trying to make?Don't forget this gem from today's dissent:
![]()
One the most insane things I've ever seen him write, honestly.