On all sides, memorialists are saying he elevated the concept of original intent into constitutional law. Since nobody else will say it, let me state the obvious: hogwash.
The original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery. A Roman Catholic scholar -- but a very different kind of Catholic from the ritualist Scalia -- Garry Wills, says this:
"One of the effects of this line of argument [that the slave power conspired against freedom] was to continue the marginalizing of abolitionists, an effort at which the South was very effective. William Lloyd Garrison was the Ur-conspiratorialist in this view. He thought even the Constitution a plot against freedom ('a covenant with death'). He went beyond criticism of the open concessions to southern demands -- on the three-fifths clause, the slave trade, and fugitive slaves -- and found a pro-slavery slant throughout the document. A claim that this was the conscious aim of the framers cannot be sustained.
But Paul Finkelman shows that the South did find ways to use many clauses of the Constitution, and many interpretations of it, to protect their slave property. The concept of 'state sovereignty' was just one of these tools. For southerners 'state's rights' meant first and foremost the right to declare that their slaveholding was no one else's business. Other constitutional conveniences afforded them included the bans on taxing exports or interstate taxes, which favored the products of slave labor. Similarly, the guarantee of states against domestic insurrection, and the use of the militia for that purpose, put the federal government on the slave owners' side if their property should rebel. The 'full faith and credit' clause made other states recognize all the South's legal provisions for slavery. And so on."("Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power, pp. 10-11)
[harry:] Bird murderer and legal fantasist Antonin Scalia died just the way he wanted 22 million Americans to die, without medical attention.
ReplyDeleteBollocks. Particularly nasty bollocks.
I have read a great deal of this kind of vile nonsense from leftists, not one of whom took any bother at all to cite what Scalia actually said or wrote to substantiate their bigotry.
Same here: pronunciamento, based on nothing.
Oh, and speaking of bovine exrcreta: The original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery.
Prove it.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/18/scalia_was_an_intellectual_phony_can_we_please_stop_calling_him_a_brilliant_jurist/
ReplyDelete'The original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause
No, Harry. Once again you miss the point. You, and Salon, make a great many charges, without once quoting exactly what he wrote, and how he got it wrong.
ReplyDeleteI am certain you won't substantiate legal fantasist Antonin Scalia died just the way he wanted 22 million Americans to die, without medical attention.
Why let facts get in the way of defamation?
And the existence of the Fugitive Slave Clause goes not one inch to substantiating your foolish assertion that The original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery.
Slavery existed. To get all 13 states to sign on to the Constitution required compromises. A very different thing from "intent".
But not to a reality impaired progressive. I know, I repeat myself.
A distinction without a difference, especially if you were a slave owner.
ReplyDeleteYour charge, a stinking pile of pixel excreta, was this: The original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery.
ReplyDeleteTo which your response, about slave owners, is completely beside the point.
And I take it that I can continue to be certain that you won't substantiate your noxious comment about Scalia. Rather makes you a liar, doesn't it?
Well, I'll await your documentation that the Framers intended to see chattel slavery not be preserved. (This should be good.)
ReplyDeleteOriginal Harry: The original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery.
ReplyDeleteSupersonic Goal Post Harry: Well, I'll await your documentation that the Framers intended to see chattel slavery not be preserved. (This should be good.)
Typical of progressive intellectual integrity, from active intent to proving a negative.
Read this.
From your continued silence, I take it you can't substantiate your noxious comment about Scalia. Rather makes you a liar, doesn't it?
I have read things like that. But not in the United States Constitution. It provides for the continuation of chattel slavery. Period.
ReplyDeleteGo ahead, cite the provisions that envisaged the end of chattel slavery. You cannot do it because there are none.
As so often happens, when I provide evidence, you ignore or deny it. I said Scalia was a legal fantasist. And I provided two kinds of evidence.
You don't like the evidence but -- as with the proslavery Constitution -- you provide nothing to refute it.
As so often happens, when I provide evidence, you ignore or deny it. I said Scalia was a legal fantasist. And I provided two kinds of evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou call that evidence? You made a serious, defamatory charge. You haven't backed it up with a single quote from a Scalia opinion, nor did your "evidence" (not even following links).
And, as always when you are blowing it out your hat, when pushed to provide direct evidence, you shift goal posts and prevaricate.
You can either provide direct evidence, or admit you got it wrong. The other alternative, the one you always pick, makes you a liar.
Again.
---
Original Harry: The original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery.
Goal Post Shifter Harry: Go ahead, cite the provisions that envisaged the end of chattel slavery. You cannot do it because there are none.
It seems two things characterize progressives: innumeracy (not here, but you have provided plenty of examples) and analytical ineptitude.
There is absolutely no evidence for your original spew, so you shift the goal post in order to require proof of a negative.
Nonetheless, your ideological blinkered ignorance is serving you as well as it always does: Here. And the actual deliberations, here.
Repeating myself, in the vain hope that it will become clear to you, you specifically said that the intent of the founders was to preserve chattel slavery, for which you have provided nothing but more exhausted crickets.
Slave trade and existence of chattel slavery are not the same thing
ReplyDeleteThe original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery.
ReplyDeleteand
Go ahead, cite the provisions that envisaged the end of chattel slavery.
are not the same thing.
But you never let a little thing like integrity stop you before.
Nor have you wondered about the underlying stupidity of your assertion. The US Constitution is a contract between the government and the governed. Insisting that it should be about something it else is a sure sign of extremely muddled thinking.
The original intent of the founding fathers was to perpetuate the second class status of women, because there are no provisions that envisaged the end of the second class status of women.
That is exactly how ridiculous you are on this.
The status of women was not an issue for them. The perpetuation of chattel slavery was.
ReplyDeleteNor have you wondered about the underlying stupidity of your assertion. The US Constitution is a contract between the government and the governed. Insisting that it should be about something it else is a sure sign of extremely muddled thinking.
ReplyDeleteAnd you still haven't provided a shred of evidence for anything you have said here.
Typical.
Well, I haven't mentioned the 35ths compromise, which was meant to perpetuate chattel slavery, but I did cite the fugitive slave clause, which was meant to forestall efforts to eliminate chattel slavery by state. But, you're right, other than that, nothing.
ReplyDeleteWell, I haven't mentioned the 3/5ths compromise ...
ReplyDeleteGood thing you didn't, because it would have made you sound more ridiculous than you already do. The compromise was required to get a constitution agreed in the first place, confusing that with the founders desiring to perpetuate chattel slavery is sloppy thinking of the very first order.
Here is what one of the founding fathers had to say:
Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own.... They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?
And, as I already mentioned above, the FSC was exactly the same thing: a compromise required to get the constitution passed. This:
... but I did cite the fugitive slave clause, which was meant to forestall efforts to eliminate chattel slavery by state.
Is a steaming pile of crap. First, I note the declarative phrase " ... was meant ..." for which you have provided no evidence whatsoever. What is it with progressives and evidence? Vampires are less allergic to sunlight.
Here is how historians not burdened by your rabid hatred view the FSC:
The more generally accepted interpretation, however, is that this clause did not speak to the issue of citizenship at all, but was a necessary accommodation to existing slavery interests in particular states, required for the sake of establishing the Constitution—"scaffolding to the magnificent structure," Frederick Douglass called it, "to be removed as soon as the building was completed." This point is underscored by the fact that, although slavery was abolished by constitutional amendment (see the Thirteenth Amendment), not one word of the original text had to be amended or deleted.
Every time I think you have trotted out the most hateful, baseless and historically ignorant nonsense imaginable, you prove me wrong.
So, to get a deal, they wrote am organic law that perpetuated slavery. That's what I said.
ReplyDeleteYou cited the trade law, but after that law went into effect (sort of) Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas and Arkansas entered as slave states.
Sounds like a perpetuation of slavery to me.
So, to get a deal, they wrote an organic law that perpetuated slavery. That's what I said.
ReplyDeleteNo, here is what you said: The original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery.
The original intent was to get an agreed Constitution.
Of course, if their original intent was to preserve slavery, I am sure you can find something in, oh, the Federalist Papers, or letters they wrote at the time, to that effect.
You won't because you can't, because it isn't there. Sounds like a perpetuation of your goal post shifting and prevarication to me.
Just as I can continue to be certain that you won't substantiate your noxious comment about Scalia. Rather makes you a liar -- or a typical progressive -- doesn't it?
Talk about perversion. Your definition of original intent would not satisfy Scalia
ReplyDeleteOf course, if their original intent was to preserve slavery, I am sure you can find something in, oh, the Federalist Papers, or letters they wrote at the time, to that effect.
ReplyDelete(emphasis added to make the blindingly obvious glaring)
Harry's response: prevarication
Just as I can continue to be certain that you won't substantiate your noxious comment about Scalia. Rather makes you a liar -- or a typical progressive -- doesn't it?
Harry's response: crickets
Your definition of original intent would not satisfy Scalia.
Which proves in one sentence that you know less about textualism and orginalism than you do about evidence, reason, and truth.
'The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is this view with which most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.'
ReplyDeleteFeel free to point to the clauses which a person in 1787 would have interpreted as restraining chattel slavery
Feel free to point to the clauses which a person in 1787 would have interpreted as restraining chattel slavery.
ReplyDeleteYou made a declarative statement that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to perpetuate slavery. If that is indeed true, as opposed to baseless defamation, then you will be able to find things the FFs wrote to that effect. In other words, evidence of your assertion. Citing the definition of originalism is, as your wont, a complete evasion of the point at hand.
Just as I can continue to be certain that you won't substantiate your noxious comment about Scalia. Rather makes you a liar -- or a typical progressive -- doesn't it?
Similarly, I continue to continue to be certain that this nasty, baseless, defamation, the sort of thing in which you specialize, will continue to be a source of prevarication, goal post shifting, and brutalized crickets.
A post at Crooked Timber did the same drive-by foulmouthing you did. I posted a couple comments, asking for specifics about their thoroughgoing nastiness.
Nothing.
What the heck is it with you progressives?
'ordinary meaning of the text to be'
ReplyDeleteThere is text about slavery.
You said I don't know what originalism means.
You just don't like evidence
There is text about slavery.
ReplyDeleteThen by all means cite and quote the text about slavery showing the founders intent was to perpetuate slavery.
That you haven't done so, despite repeated requests, is compelling evidence in and of itself that you are once again ranting the odious -- it isn't that I don't like your evidence; rather, you haven't provided any evidence to like or dislike.
As much as I dislike doing the research you can't be fussed with, here is the slavery debate at the Constitutional Convention. You will not find any Founding Father's hoping to perpetuate slavery.
Exactly like your odious rant about Scalia.
There are Truthers more intellectually honest than you.
Now you're just being silly. Slavery was doing very very well under the Constitution, as I pointed out. And there was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would ever have turned it around.
ReplyDeleteThat's evidence. You just don't want to see it.
Slavery was doing very very well under the Constitution, as I pointed out.
ReplyDeleteWhat you said: The original intent of the Framers was to preserve chattel slavery.
You are such a liar you lie about your lies.
Which puts you in league with Truthers.
And I continue to continuously continue to continue to note that your odious Scalia rant is a lie just as foul.
Par for the progressive course.
In such a target rich environment, I forgot:
ReplyDeleteAnd there was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would ever have turned it around.
Your prog-typical inability to think analytically has completely blinded you to the fact that the Constitution is about government, not slavery.
That's called a category mistake, BTW.
Actually, the Constitution is about slavery. You might want to read Wills's 'Negro President,' from which I quoted, before you comment further.
ReplyDeleteYou quoted it? Where? Instead of being an anchoresque drag on the art of blog commenting, why the heck did you not link to your quote?
ReplyDeleteBut why all the misdirection. If the Constitution is about slavery, you should be able to quote liberally from the Constitution itself, the Federalist papers, the debates, etc.
Like a Truther, you haven't done any such thing. Instead, like a Truther, you have shifted the goal posts.
In the original post.
ReplyDeleteIt's a book. By a well-known conservative. In the library.
You don't have to read the whole thing. Pages 131-2 will do.
From the OP:
ReplyDeleteHe thought even the Constitution a plot against freedom ('a covenant with death'). He went beyond criticism of the open concessions to southern demands -- on the three-fifths clause, the slave trade, and fugitive slaves -- and found a pro-slavery slant throughout the document. A claim that this was the conscious aim of the framers cannot be sustained.
Do you even read your own posts?
And I continue to go on noting to continuously continue to continue to note that your odious Scalia rant is a lie just as foul.
Read that for context. He says Pickering thought the whole constitution was pro-slavery, not that the intention was not to perpetuate slavery.
ReplyDeleteSince you are such an originalist, you might want to read what I said about Scalia. It was mild enough.
Harry, what you have been doing so far isn't even so admirable as monkeys throwing poo.
ReplyDeleteIf you understood anything about originalism (pro-tip: read Heller on why the 2A established an individual right to bear arms), and you were doing anything other than hurling poo, then you would have had no end of contemporaneous writings from the FFs explaining how their intent was to perpetuate slavery. Instead, you have nothing but prevarication, and the self inflicted wound of trolling your own blog.
Since you are such an originalist, you might want to read what I said about Scalia. It was mild enough.
That doesn't even make sense, never mind answer the charge: that you are a liar.
It would be nice if you would honor Scalia by at least using his definition of originalism.
ReplyDeletePS: Now you've brought in Heller, you should read Chapter 13 of 'Negro President.'
No, Harry. It would be nice if you would, instead of endless prevarication and trolling your own blog, provide some actual evidence for your poisonous assertion.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't because you can't.
You are a liar, ranting the odious.
I considered what I said mild. I could have called him a judicial murderer, which he was and which many others have done.
ReplyDeleteI consider what you said completely vacuous, the ranting of an ideologically diseased mind.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy reconsider, but you still, despite many requests, have utterly failed to back up even one of your toxic accusations.
Typical progressive.
Read it and weep:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing-the-innocent-is-constitutional-2014-9
Read it and weep.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused. Perhaps I should be weeping in frustration because I have asked you more than a half dozen times to substantiate Bird murderer and legal fantasist Antonin Scalia died just the way he wanted 22 million Americans to die, without medical attention, and you haven't bothered trying?
Weeping in sympathy for all the readers upon which you manifestly practiced journalistic malfeasance, made obvious here by completely ignoring the primary source for your response that isn't a response?
Or weeping from laughing so hard at your failing to read your link past the headline.
That, there, is a toughie. But why choose?
So we are left where your self-trolling always leaves us: ... despite many requests, [you] have utterly failed to back up even one of your toxic accusations.
It isn't that hard. Go to Scalia's opinions themselves. They are easy to find, even for someone possessing limited Google-fu.