I said in the above post: even having the gall to want slaves to be represented in Congress, so yes I know about the 3/5 compromise and you can stop thinking your the only person who knows history.

The North and South were consistently fighting over the issue of slavery.  The North's ultimate goal was to abolish slavery, first in its states, then in its territories (legal fighting on slavery in Missouri, Kansas, acquried Mexican territories, and so forth) and finally in the South.

Slaves partially counted towards political representation and tax allocation.  For instance, if South Carolina had 2 million whites and 1 million blacks, they were represented as having 2.66 million people in Congress.  Take away slavery and the South loses big time politically.

Even today, Republicans don't want Washington DC to have political representaiton because of their Democrat leanings.  The Democrats offered to give Utah (most Republican state) another representative so people in Washington could have a right to be representated in government, but Republicans declined.  We have problems today about representation, so you can imagine how bad it was in 1860 when slaves gave their state extra representatives and extra tax money.

well lets see: after 9/11 all arabs would have been kicked out of the counrty; 50% don't pay taxes now how high does it go if they get to decide; how do corporations do business if people can just change the rules and taxes at any time? how do we fight wars if they change their mind every day on what to fund? how do you count 100 million votes every day? How do states operate if the people can force them to do things? how does the world live when 51% tries to tell everyone else how to live? Thats why the house is the peoples and has elections every two years, and that the senate was setup for states rights and only 1/3 is up for election(picked by states before the 17th amendment) every two years. Thats why the president is picked by electoral college every 4 years. Thats why the President gets to pick the new judges and the senate has to okay them, and that they serve for life. Thats why every state is a Republic. Thats why adding/forming a new state to the union is limited by the constitution. Thats why 3/4ths of the states have to ratify an amendment and that no state can lose its votes in the senate at the whim of other states.

Whew, this argument went all over. But I just want to point out a pet peeve of mine. People follow the bible religiously because they think it is of divine origin and filled with perfect timeless wisdom of the ages and is infallible because it comes from a source greater than human comprehension. I'm an atheist, so I don't believe all that jazz, but that is why people follow it, even if it is to some kind of extreme ends. Same for the Quran, and other holy texts.

Now barring some wacked out religious view that God guided America into creation, why the hell do people treat the constitution as a religious document? It is not divine wisdom that endures for all eternity, the founding fathers were not superhuman with wisdom beyond the comprehension of the rest of humanity past present or future. They were philosophers with ideas on politics, and economics. Nothing more, nothing less. And they were writing for what they saw and thought in their own time. To think that they would have penned the exact same document word for word if they saw our modern world seems insane.

To say that you agree 100% with the constitution seems unlikely, but fine if it is so. But trying to say that under no circumstance should it even be changed or "re-interpreted" because it carries some sort of lofty timeless superhuman wisdom is absurd. The founding fathers were philosophers no different from modern or past philosophers, to say that they can't be contradicted by anyone ever no matter what the world looks like, or what we learn, is the same principle as following the edicts written by an ancient race of genocidal misogynistic barbarians because they were culturally and economically successful in their day.

funny because the constitution has the 3/5th comprimise and it had nothing to do with the time period of the Civil war. So your history needs some checking again. And yes they fought over slavery, big deal they decided that new states could determine if the would allow slavery or not. Lincoln campaign on changing that. This is where the problem started.

if you don't like the constitution then you can amend it. theres no need to re-interperate the language and give it new meaning unless you want to avoid the amendment process. And yes the constitution is pretty damn important the way it is, thats why it takes 3/4ths of the states to change it. Can you imagine what the government/other people could do to you if they could just change things so easily. Look at Meranda rights? how many people did the cops trick into giving in just because they didn't pay attention to the constitution. now the cops have to make sure you know your rights.

There is a very big difference between important and infallible. I don't think the constitution is a cocktail napkin to be scribbled on, but it is not a religious document. There is some wierd shit in there that is definitely not timeless, and just doesn't jive with modernity. The question is always just a matter of figuring out which are the the parts that are still important and wise, and which parts are just philosophical or economic relics of their time. Most jews don't stone people that work on the sabbath and for good reason, and we don't have the 3/5ths compromise anymore for good reason.

Most people do not think that the constitution in it's original form was 100% perfect and timeless, and if they do they are either crazy or ignorant. People would see certain amendments or reinterpretations as being positive things, it's just a disagreement on which parts should be altered and why.

???

Take away Slavery, and you would have 3 million people counted. How is that worse? It's not like the million people working in the fields, who most got paid by the way, would just leave. Most of them would still do the jobs they were doing.

@Hobbit: If you whine about having too many arabs, vote for people who would kick them out. That's how democracy works. But let me guess - you don't vote.

People don't have to vote for everything, it only depends on how much power you're giving for the government so that they could decide things for you with your mandate.

But judging by your posts in the topic, i can guess what your political stance is. If you had lived in 60's or 70's, you had been marching on the streets singing International.

@ManusJustus: Actually, the cotton production of the south relied on slave work, while the fabric industries of the north didn't.

Yeah, but then black people would be voting and be given the rights of full citizens.  Not exactly what Southern Whites desired at the time, be they slave owner or not.