Next Show: ...loading...

Mark on the Glen Beck Show: Liberals are the Real “Textualists”!

June 28, 2010

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Mark T. July 8, 2010 6:52 pm

    Thanks for answerining my questions,although they were more or less meant to be rhetorical. I was just kind of pointing out that even since the beginning of our great country we did not always do the correct things because it is just easier to compromise with the opposition even when they are on the wrong side of history.
    We progressives need to fight harder to get the necesary changes that we believe in.

  • Mark Levine July 8, 2010 3:15 pm

    Mark T.

    1. You’re right that very few of the Founding Fathers supported outlawing slavery. A few did, but they were in the minority.

    2. The 3/5 clause was a compromise. Southern states wanted slaves to be counted in full (but of course not emancipated or given the right to vote) so that the Southern white man would have greater representation in Congress. The Northern states were against counting any slaves, since the slaves were not citizens and, as you point out Mark T., they had no right to vote. The 3/5 clause gave Southern white men in the slave states more power than Northern white men in the free states but less power than if the slaves had been counted in full.

  • Mark T. July 8, 2010 2:54 pm

    I went to the website link you gave and came away with more questions than answers.
    1. If so few of our Founding Fathers were in favor of slavery and the vast majority opposed, then why was slavery just not banned under the new Constitution? Wouldn’t that have been the perfect time to mean “all” men are created equal? Why is it that the United States is the only country that required a war before it could abolish slavery?
    2. If counting slaves as 3/5 of a person was to limit the power of slave holding states from too much representation then why count them at all. After all they certainly had no right to vote, so why give them any representation, 3/5 or otherwise.

  • Gabe July 6, 2010 8:27 pm

    Lorie, I defy you to tell me exactly which parts of my post were “political nuance.” Was it the part where Robert Kennedy called to have a Civil Rights leader leader let out of jail? Or the part where a court appointed mostly by Democrats struck down the wretched practice of segregation? Where is the nuance?

    And I can understand if you cut ties with the Democratic Party… 100 years ago. But instead of shouting yourself hoarse over the atrocities of years ago, how about you realize that the Democratic Party has change so drastically in the last 70 years that those racists that you ballyhoo left the party! That’s right! Strom Thurmond and all his Dixiecrat buddies left the party because they saw that the Democrats had a continued commitment to the rights of all Americans. I don’t think you’ll find a single Democrat today who will support the actions of Democrats (or Republicans) for that matter in early American history. Especially not Civil Rights Movement hero John Lewis. A black man and a Democrat.

    Lorie, no Democrat has “forgiven” slavery and its accompanying atrocities. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if asked any Democrat would condemn the practice.

    Your comparison to China Russia and Germany is wild and baseless. You seem to just be grasping at straws, likely because you are on the losing side of this.

    Just out of curiosity, are you going to defect from America because a couple of soldiers in the middle east tortured suspects? Are you going to renounce your American citizenship because America as a nation allowed slavery, even writing in provisions in the Constitution to allow for them to be counted?

    And if Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Gideon v. Wainwright, Baker v. Carr, and the political affiliation of MLK (which YOU cited in the first place), are “insignificant” to you, then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. That is the conclusion I have come to and I won’t apologize for it.