• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the US constitution intend to give rights to blacks?

did the constitution intend to give rights to blacks?

  • yes

    Votes: 4 18.2%

  • no

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • other

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • Total voters
    22
Waddy said:
As Bill Engvall says; "here's your sign", and don't forget Wiki is your friend.... LMAO

"Affirmative action, also known as reservation in India and Nepal, positive action in the UK, and employment equity (in a narrower context) in Canada and South Africa, is the policy of protecting members of groups that are known to have previously suffered from discrimination.[1][2][3][4] Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, promoting diversity, and redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances.

The nature of affirmative action policies varies from region to region. Some countries use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of government jobs, political positions, and school vacancies must be reserved for members of a certain group; an example of this is the reservation system in India. In some other regions where quotas are not used, minority group members are given preference or special consideration in selection processes. In the United States, affirmative action in employment and education has been the subject of legal and political controversy, and in 2003, a pair of US Supreme Court decisions (Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor when admitting students while prohibiting the use of quotas.[5] In other countries, such as the UK,[6][7][8] affirmative action is rendered illegal because it does not treat all races equally. This approach to equal treatment is described as being "color blind." In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#United_States

AA was first adopted to help blacks, but now covers gays and liberals.

thanks, kobie; made the correction
Click to expand...

WOW!! you dont even relized how bad you just failed LMAO

the topic is AA in AMERICA and my question was what LAW makes AA about just blacks.

and the statement that was made was this:
"If blacks became the dominant racial group in terms of size and income, then all of a sudden affirmative action for blacks would be an advantage. Too much of an advantage over whites. But if blacks gained more power, why would they want to give up that power?"
that statment is factually untrue becasue no law supports it

so feel free to try and answer again so I can laugh even harder next time

SO ill ask EVERYBODY and ANYBODY again . . what LAW makes AA just for black people

oh yeah, tell me that "kewl" line about "heres you sign" again. I believe you are now 0-3 using that line against me:lamo


:popcorn2:
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
WOW!! you dont even relized how bad you just failed LMAO

the topic is AA in AMERICA and my question was what LAW makes AA about just blacks.

and the statement that was made was this:
"If blacks became the dominant racial group in terms of size and income, then all of a sudden affirmative action for blacks would be an advantage. Too much of an advantage over whites. But if blacks gained more power, why would they want to give up that power?"
that statment is factually untrue becasue no law supports it

so feel free to try and answer again so I can laugh even harder next time

SO ill ask EVERYBODY and ANYBODY again . . what LAW makes AA just for black people

oh yeah, tell me that "kewl" line about "heres you sign" again. I believe you are now 0-3 using that line against me:lamo


:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

It's right in front of you. Not my problem you can't read. LMAO
 
Waddy said:
It's right in front of you. Not my problem you can't read. LMAO
Click to expand...

Transaltion: you STILL cant post a law that makes AA is only for black people, thats what I thought. LMAO
Let us know when you can, thanks
 
The Declaration of Independence clarified things...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
 
Tigerace117 said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

“The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The proposal was debated on July 11th and initially, the concept of counting by a 3/5ths ratio was voted down by the members present at the Convention.[2][3] A few southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population.[4][5] Seeing that the states could not remain united without some sort compromise measure, the ratio of 3/5ths was brought back to the table and agreed to.”

The thing was, in 1787 slaves already largely outnumbered free African Americans, and slaves therefore made up a much more consequential chunk of the southern populace.
Click to expand...

Balancing power, keeping the Union of States together, all made compromises. Otherwise the States would have gone their own way.
 
AGENT J said:
Transaltion: you STILL cant post a law that makes AA is only for black people, thats what I thought. LMAO
Let us know when you can, thanks
Click to expand...

I know WIKI is difficult for you to comprehend, but your question is answered right on that page. I can't help you if you have limited comprehension. Now, go and read it again, that's your assignment for tonight. You are quite entertaining, in a court jester sort of way. You keep me LMAO !!!!!!
 
Waddy said:
I know WIKI is difficult for you to comprehend, but your question is answered right on that page. I can't help you if you have limited comprehension. Now, go and read it again, that's your assignment for tonight. You are quite entertaining, in a court jester sort of way. You keep me LMAO !!!!!!
Click to expand...

LMAO another dodge and complete failure, I love it.
Please let us know when you can back up your failed claim and post the law that makes AA just for black people, we are waiting, thanks!
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO another dodge and complete failure, I love it.
Please let us know when you can back up your failed claim and post the law that makes AA just for black people, we are waiting, thanks!
Click to expand...

Read it for yourself. It's right there on WIKI. Failure to comprehend is your complete failure. I love it. Get back to us when you learn to read. LMAO :) :) :)
 
Waddy said:
Read it for yourself. It's right there on WIKI. Failure to comprehend is your complete failure. I love it. Get back to us when you learn to read. LMAO :) :) :)
Click to expand...

And ANOTHER dodge LMAO.
Once again we are waiting, simply post the law that makes AA only for black people.Thanks!


Who wants to bet my question is dodged again.
 
Not at first, but after the civil war, congress passed the 13-15th amendments in hopes of making former black slaves equal to whites.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Declaration of Independence clarified things...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Click to expand...

And that included AA's, immigrants and...women.
 
Bucky said:
I am of the belief that U.S Constitution had no intent to actually give rights or equal protection to blacks. If it did, it would say so plainly in the Consitution instead of the vague "we the people" quote.

I think you are in two camps 1. you believe the framers had no idea how diverse of a society in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation we would become, making it outdated or 2. The framers intentionally wanted to be vague for a specific reason.

I believe that anytime you create a law that benefits a specific race, it creates a counter disadvantage for another race. We know from history that when you take or keep rights away rights from a group for racist reasons, it has a negative effect on that group. On the flip slide, when you provide an advantage for a specific race, it creates a negative effect on other race groups.

Examples of affirmative action are a perfect example. That's why framers today would be against laws and bills that exclusively gave an advantage to one group over another. In many ways, they tried to colorless.

If blacks became the dominant racial group in terms of size and income, then all of a sudden affirmative action for blacks would be an advantage. Too much of an advantage over whites. But if blacks gained more power, why would they want to give up that power?

I am not denying institutional racism does not exist however I believe laws should be shaped based on lifting people in a certain economic status rather than blanket policies based on racial groups.
Click to expand...

I'm in a third camp that says you really have no clue about the role slavery played in the compromises that the founding fathers had to reach in order to draft a constitution that would be ratified by the states.
 
WarmPotato said:
Some founders wanted abolition, but allowed slavery for the sake of keeping a strong union.
To pretend they were all racist is retarded.
To pretend they were all abolitionist is retarded.

Conversation done.
Click to expand...

Agreed, except for the fact that they allowed slavery in order to FORM the union. The formation of the union of states and the constitution, allowed for the abolition of slavery.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Declaration of Independence clarified things...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Click to expand...

That was declaration, not law. People use that (and the quote on the Statue of Liberty) as if they were law. If we were to make those law, we would also have to make sure that belief in God were law as well.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Declaration of Independence clarified things...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Click to expand...
Except the D of I was written well before the Constitution.
 
AGENT J said:
And ANOTHER dodge LMAO.
Once again we are waiting, simply post the law that makes AA only for black people.Thanks!


Who wants to bet my question is dodged again.
Click to expand...

Learn to read. It's right there in the WIKI. Quit dodging the facts. You haven't posted any yet. LMAO
 
Bucky said:
I am of the belief that U.S Constitution had no intent to actually give rights or equal protection to blacks. If it did, it would say so plainly in the Consitution instead of the vague "we the people" quote.

I think you are in two camps 1. you believe the framers had no idea how diverse of a society in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation we would become, making it outdated or 2. The framers intentionally wanted to be vague for a specific reason.

I believe that anytime you create a law that benefits a specific race, it creates a counter disadvantage for another race. We know from history that when you take or keep rights away rights from a group for racist reasons, it has a negative effect on that group. On the flip slide, when you provide an advantage for a specific race, it creates a negative effect on other race groups.

Examples of affirmative action are a perfect example. That's why framers today would be against laws and bills that exclusively gave an advantage to one group over another. In many ways, they tried to colorless.

If blacks became the dominant racial group in terms of size and income, then all of a sudden affirmative action for blacks would be an advantage. Too much of an advantage over whites. But if blacks gained more power, why would they want to give up that power?

I am not denying institutional racism does not exist however I believe laws should be shaped based on lifting people in a certain economic status rather than blanket policies based on racial groups.
Click to expand...

Of Course. States had no authority over Entry into the Union, and have no Constitutional basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state. Slavery was supposed to become extinct, after that.

The South preferred to rebel, instead of taking Our First Amendment to the Union, and demanding redress of grievances. Eminent Domain applies since an Public Policy constitutes an Public Use.
 
Waddy said:
Learn to read. It's right there in the WIKI. Quit dodging the facts. You haven't posted any yet. LMAO
Click to expand...

So it is not just for African Americans
 
Waddy said:
Learn to read. It's right there in the WIKI. Quit dodging the facts. You haven't posted any yet. LMAO
Click to expand...

LMAO and another dodge and you STILL can prove theres a law that makes AA only for black people :lamo
Let us know when you can, thanks!
 
Bucky said:
I am of the belief that U.S Constitution had no intent to actually give rights or equal protection to blacks. If it did, it would say so plainly in the Consitution instead of the vague "we the people" quote.

I think you are in two camps 1. you believe the framers had no idea how diverse of a society in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation we would become, making it outdated or 2. The framers intentionally wanted to be vague for a specific reason.

I believe that anytime you create a law that benefits a specific race, it creates a counter disadvantage for another race. We know from history that when you take or keep rights away rights from a group for racist reasons, it has a negative effect on that group. On the flip slide, when you provide an advantage for a specific race, it creates a negative effect on other race groups.

Examples of affirmative action are a perfect example. That's why framers today would be against laws and bills that exclusively gave an advantage to one group over another. In many ways, they tried to colorless.

If blacks became the dominant racial group in terms of size and income, then all of a sudden affirmative action for blacks would be an advantage. Too much of an advantage over whites. But if blacks gained more power, why would they want to give up that power?

I am not denying institutional racism does not exist however I believe laws should be shaped based on lifting people in a certain economic status rather than blanket policies based on racial groups.
Click to expand...

The us constitution was drafted by the founding fathers, with 2 being the biggest influences on it. If the question is intend, the earlier proposals intended to have all men free, however in the end they had to comprimise leading to the 3/5ths clause, as some southern states would not want to give up slaves, and many northern states were on the fence about that issue as well, so they put creating a new govt over their ideals. Many founders believed it was impossible to be a free state and own slaves, the two contradicted eachother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom