Conservatives take another L this week; same sex marriage passes
- Thread starter smitty22
- Start date
Rapmastermind
Superstar
Do you believe black people fall under the definition of "men" as delineated in the US Constitution?
Is there a definition of "men" in the Constitution?
Rapmastermind
Superstar
Conservatives are calling this the 9/11 of Supreme Court Rulings
fruit or sponge layer is the question?@Tuaminator great news right?
Is there a definition of "men" in the Constitution?
"Men" 'As delineated' in the constitution, not as defined in the constitution
that doesn't answer my question, not specifically.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Conservatives are calling this the 9/11 of Supreme Court Rulings
what a pathetic bunch of a$$holes. I'll be so happy when this lot dies off and their larvae are marginalized words can't even describe it.
No......the US Constitution doesn't define "men".....
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...issent_slaves_did_not_lose_their_dignity.html
Justice Clarence Thomas has a fervent dissent of the Supreme Court’s historic decision to invalidate same-sex marriage bans. His argument, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, quibbles with the definition of liberty itself. “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. “They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit.” And yet he takes the argument even further—because human dignity “has long been understood in this country to be innate,” here’s who else Thomas thinks hasn’t been deprived of it:
Justice Clarence Thomas has a fervent dissent of the Supreme Court’s historic decision to invalidate same-sex marriage bans. His argument, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, quibbles with the definition of liberty itself. “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. “They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit.” And yet he takes the argument even further—because human dignity “has long been understood in this country to be innate,” here’s who else Thomas thinks hasn’t been deprived of it:
Not sure it specifically forbids slavery either, thus the 13th amendment.
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 as well as the Bill of Rights. The constitution EXPRESSLY states that not all the inalienable rights are stated in its body
Last edited:
Seriously. That's what he said. Don't take our word for it -- see for yourself:
Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.