"To remind him that our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as to them shall seem most likely to promote public happiness."

Should the US restore the open borders immigration policy that it had prior to 1860?

No.

However, you might consider asking questions that require more than one word to answer.

Given that the US Constitution has never been amended in order to authorize fedgov to have the authority to interdict detain and deport it appears that the policy was never LEGALLY abandoned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

We were not a welfare state in 1860. You can't have open borders and entitlement programs for the poor without harming the interests of current US residents.

Should the US restore the open borders immigration policy that it had prior to 1860?

Ah, 1860, what a year that was. The Civil War had not yet busted out. The US population was less than Manhattan's. The world had yet to be nuked. Depressions were constant and horrid, but hey, just Go West young'un. That is if the Indians didn't getcha first. No email, wordprocessors, barely any typewriters, who ever heard of a spell checker? You had a secretary and she was white. Thar was gold in them thar hills!

Mark Twain was a river pilot's jargon. Gold watches meant something. Ice meant something. Farmers meant something. Parlors were for socializing and theater was for entertainment. Pot was legal and so was cocaine, and redeye made your eyes red.

Yes, 1860, a year of transition. The abolitionists on the move, the new states coming in, ideas fomenting in the parlors of America, the name Napoleon just near the tongue tip, states' rights, antebellum unthinkable, welcome immigrant if you can handle it.

And it was tough. My peeps cut timber in the mosquito-infested freezing north, later mined iron ore. They drank hard, whored hard and worked hard. They hated each other and missed the fiords and Viking ships and native tongues. It never amounted to much, and they knew it. Could have been worse.

But now everybody's rich. Just setting foot here makes you rich. Breathing this polluted air makes you rich. Speaking a little English makes you rich. Rich rich rich.

That's because home sucks sucks sucks.

Much better here.

Much better than home. See?

They ask for my ID now more than ever before. It's homeland security, so I'm told. It's to check if I'm legal, so I figure. Gotta be legal in 2007. No illegals in 2007.

Maybe not so much in 1860. But then home was pretty okay, comparatively speaking. It had to get pretty durn terrible to move out. Or there was gold in them thar hills. Or you could get land cheap, not that it was worth anything anyway. Hard scrabble isn't a game. Grow taters, Tater!

But who's gonna pick my pretty little taters? How's about hiring some Americans! Uh, they cost too much and bitch too much, and woe is me. Who's gonna pick my pretty little taters?

Huh? Who picked them in 1860?

Immigration is different today than back then. Four score plus one and two and a couple more score and some change later, some lots of change later, times are different. There's no gold in them thar hills, except for the Corporation, but who's gonna pick my pretty little taters?

My pretty little taters rotten in the field.

It's too different. Way too different, and changing all the time.

True.

But, our Mexican Alien Friends should not be penalized because FDR decided to change our country from a constitutional republic to a welfare-warfare state.

Secondly University Of Maryland economics professor - Julian L. Simon - has found that the belief that immigrants are an economic burden on the government to be wholly without a factual foundation.

I take a moderate position on illegal immigration. I don't like the idea, for example, of fining people as a condition of citizenship.

The study you linked, however, is twelve years old. Demographics change in a period of more than a decade.

It is estimated that there are 12,000,000 "undocumented" workers in the US. If those individuals are paying the average federal income , ie, $3.000.00 per individual then those workers are pumping 36 BBBBBillion into the economy.

I lived in EL Paso for about three years, the FBI rated the city as the safest in the US , all the major employers are of Hispanic descent. Univision is one of the most powerful TV networks - sponsors advertise there because they know that the hispanic community has a considerable purchasing power.

So where is the beef? The anti-alien mentality has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with xenophobia and prejudicism.





Actually the "problem" was that the Chinese no longer wanted to work as domestic help. They wanted to work in the California gold mines . They wanted to make lots of money . Mine owners prefered the chinese because they were highly reliable and efficient. There were no allegations that the chinese were committing crimes , that they were an economic burden on the state, or were diseased.

But a racist supreme court ruled that the chinese had to go because they were efficient and making white folks look bad. So the racists in black robes ruled that an "emergency " existed and therefore the feds had the authority to detain and deport - for the first time in our nation's history.

None of this addresses what I pointed out. That is, that the study you linked was done in 1995 - more than a decade and a census ago.

Would you not think it's a bit out of date?



Does your keyboard have a stuttering problem?

I'm always one to look at the truth squarely.

Our border are porous.

This is potentially problematic.

That potential is rather low.

Frankly anyone who want to cross... does.

Open Borders. We have them de facto.

Do I like the idea of throwing in the towel on this, rather pointless fight?

Only if there is no chance of seeing our immigration standards changed to allow most workers in if they want it.

Open borders are a decent Plan B. It ruins our chance of contraband interdiction, but that isn't what drives the policy.

Our immigration policies are driven by xenophobia in origin and a large part of the continuation.

Gotta admit that one.

Well, I believe that whether or not it does is irrelevant.

US immigration Law was adopted by the US Supreme Court because an alleged "emergency" existed . There were no allegations at the time that the chinese were an economic burden, that they were criminals or deceased.

The story about Elvira Arellano is she is an illegal immigrant from Mexico whose son was born in the U.S and is a citizen.
She hid in a Chicago church for I can't remember how long but at least 6 months.
She decided to go to California for a Protest March about deporting illegal immigrants.
From what I heard she was deported.
I can't see how this is related to Rosa Parks at all.
This is 2007 and the whole immigration thing is to keep illegal immigrants from crossing the borders.
Do I feel sorry for her? No.
She had plenty of time to become a U.S. citizen and thought for what ever reason she didn't have to.
Do I feel bad for her son? No. This would of not happened if she would of followed the new laws to become a citizen and I guess thought it didn't apply to her.

When it come to non-whites caucasians are always looking for a pretext to treat them disdainfully.

As I have demonstrated , the chinese were deported even though there was no evidence that they were an economic burden, that they were deceased or criminals.

The blacks were discriminated against based on their skin color. On one ocassion the Supreme Court ruled that they were not even US citizens.

And now Hispanics are discriminated against because they are "illegals" which is , of course , an euphemism for brown skinned.

A al lot more have found the opposite including most economists.

The spread of illegal immigrates is costing Americans billions of dollars and after you take a look at the numbers below, think about what it’s going to cost you and your community.

Cost of Illegal Immigration to Texas: 4.7 billion a year or an extra $725 to each resident in the form of taxes, higher education costs, higher law enforcement costs, and higher health care costs

cost of Illegal Immigration to California: 10.5 billion a year or an extra $1,183 to each resident in the form of taxes, higher.
http://madtechspeaks.blogspot.com/2005/05/...mmigration.html

And instead of spending most of their wages here in the US they send 55 billion a year back to Mexico and SA.

research suggests that "between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year." The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000.8
80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. is smuggled across the border by Mexican nationals
http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html

What BA said, "No."

I would suggest that you read Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution again.

I just want to raise a stink about this thread's title. It's an insult to Rosa Parks. She was a citizen who worked against an unfair system within her own country. If illegal immigrants were to be equal, they'd be working against unfair things in their own countries.

There's a huge difference and one that has to do with native guts. Those who run away from their native countries are gutless wonders. Those who stay and struggle are to be admired.

Well said.

Per the topic: Article 1, Section 9



It's been a long time since 1808. Looks like federal actions to curb immigration have been perfectly Constitutionally legitimate since that time.

As indicated hereinabove Congress attempted to adopt an immigration Law in order to keep French Citizens out. Madison , the Father Of The Constitution and Jefferson objected. Funny the First Congress did not try to defend the law based on article 1 Sections 8 and 9 .

Now you would think that Founders Madison and Jefferson would know the Powers of Congress. Congress conceded that they had NO AUTHORITY and the law was allowed to expire in 1800. We had no federal immigration law until the "emergency" (wink, wink) created by our Chinese Alien Friends"



Assuming that you figures are correct, (they are not) the federal government can not take the position that it can spend 7-10 BBBBBillion per month in order to defend the state of Israel but it can not spend a far lesser amount on our Mexican Alien Friends.

An again , as a Libertarian my position is clear, the US government should not be in the welfare-warfare business.



Interesting, but there are many in this country who would say that her country is Africa. Even Abraham Lincoln at one time contemplated sending "them" back.



Interesting comment coming from someone who supports the US invasion in the middle east where the neocrazies are telling the Muslims how to run their own country.

Excuse me , let me go vomit.



HUH?

Article 1 Section 9 deals with the Slave Trade.

The fact that a Constitutional Article was needed to forbid Congress from denying the migration of "persons" would seem to indicate they had the right to do so (without said Article), wouldn't it?

The opposite is true.

The fact that the Founders specifically adopted an enumerated power confirms that Congress only has those powers that were specifically enumerated.

In the Landmark case known as Marbury v Madison the Supreme Court observed:


"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts pro- [5 U.S. 137, 177] hibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act."

This wasn't an enumerated power, but a limit imposed on Congress: "You cannot forbid the importation of people, but may impose a charge of ten dollars per person until 1808" would indicate that after 1808, the importation of people could be restricted. Alternately, it would imply that Congress had the right to restrict imported persons without said article. Being a strict constructionist, you should appreciate that the words "free people" or "slaves" was not invoked.

If you choose to believe that historical context is necessary and the above would apply to only slaves, to be consistent you would have to use context for the rest. The ability to restrict access into a country is the very definition of sovereignty. It's implicitly obvious. That's why our (along with every other) government can deport people. But (I don't think) the words 'deportation' are written in the Constitution, even though it would be pretty clear to those founders that the measure might be necessary. Alternately, there is the provision for a standing army for protection against invasion. To assert that the nation must protect itself against invasion but cannot deny anyone entry is like saying one must employ a multi-million dollar alarm system but simultaneously cannot deny anyone and everyone open easy access into the home.

"THE SECOND class of powers, lodged in the general government, consists of those which regulate the intercourse with foreign nations, to wit: to make treaties; to send and receive ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; to regulate foreign commerce, including a power to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves

It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation."

JAMES MADISON
JANUARY 22, 1788

Contumacious, let's assume that Jefferson was right when he wrote that the 1798 "'Act concerning aliens,' which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force." The law should have been overturned by the Supreme Court, and would have been if they'd had Marbury v. Madison to use as precedent. (That decision was still a few years off.)

Jefferson was arguing that Tennessee should be able to make its own policy on "alien friends," and not have to follow a national policy imposed by the Congress. If you agree, you must be very upset by the decision in Lozano v. City of Hazleton, where a federal judge ruled that only the federal government can make and enforce immigration policy:


(p. 186 at PDF link) More Judge Munley: "Immigration is an area of the law where there is a history of significant federal presence and where the States have not traditionally occupied the field. In fact, as set forth more fully below, immigration is a federal concern not a state or local matter." (footnote 41, p. 92) What usurpation!

If it were left to the states, I think we would likely have immigration enforcement at least as tough as the current federal level. It just wouldn't be consistent or coordinated as well between the states.

Should the US restore the open borders immigration policy that it had prior to 1860?

No, as several others have said, you can't have open immigration and a welfare state. The world will provide a virtually endless supply of poor people -- literally billions of them, many times the current population of the U.S. I understand Contumacious would like to end the welfare state as well as immigration controls. That's logically consistent, but completely unrealistic.

Absolutely not. If we did half the world would try to get here and just what would we do with them?

We need immigrants and imo should look for highly educated people as most other countries like Canada do but we no longer need “the teaming refuse”.

As all of us can see easily our “open border” with Mexico is a disaster.

Jefferson was, of course, correct"


"MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.



The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.""The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. . . . In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; .....




U.S. Supreme Court
BOYD v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)

The Constitution has never been amended in order to confer the power to interdict, detain and deport to the federal government. Ms Arellano was not acting illegally. the federal government was!!!!!!!!!!!!

The quote you attribute to Chief Justice Fuller is actually a quote from Chief Justice Teney in his opinion in Dred Scott vs Sandford. This opinion is considered by many to be one of the most prominent poor opinions written by the Supreme Court. Further more, the Boyd vs State of Nebraska was decided against Nebraska and did not seem to have anything to do with citizenship but did concern eligibility to hold office.

Because.......

You say that "Jefferson was correct," then cite the Dred Scot decision as evidence? Moreover, you did so by linking to Boyd v. Nebraska? Why didn't you link directly to Dred Scot?

By the way, do you agree that the 14th Amendment overturned Dred Scot?

on edit, Gray Seal had already posted this. Didn't mean to pile on. I've deleted the quoted case cites and annoying red print.

I was merely using historical facts to demonstrate that Jefferson's opinion to the effect that the states retained the right to grant their citizenship upon whomsoever is still correct.


" Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons..."

Justice Taney's racist conclusion that Negroes were not US citizens is irrelevant.

But California hadn't conferred any special "alien friend" privileges on Ms. Arellano, as far as I know. If she'd been deported by local San Diego police, you would have been fine with that?

The issue is irrelevant to this thread.

But may I remind you that at the time the amendment was "adopted" the Southern States were under martial flocking law? It is hard to vote against the measure when northern soldiers had rifles trained on the southern senators temples!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 - What's the difference if his conclusion was "racist?" The founders didn't seem to have any problem with racism.
2 - Are you saying that they were citizens then? If so, what made them citizens, and where was it in the Constitution?

As for the scare quotes around your last quote - was the 14th Amendment "adopted" or not? If so, is it live and in full effect?

Would it just be for south of the border or for everyone? Why does America need to do this? Should every nation including Mexico adopt a no border solution?

Nasty question I know but hey freedom and equality are the same thing or not? That’s another nasty question.

Short order answer, there is no solution for immigration or more importantly with say south of the border. People are people and typically need to survive, so in the world many see America as a better place to conduct life. I guess what this means is Mexico for instance cant? Why is this? Maybe that’s what needs to be fixed possibly, though with the advent of sexual reproduction eventually I don’t see anything being able to support a constantly growing human population, regardless of whatever differences we impose on each other.

What if we just expand American borders I mean panama canal aside I don’t see it as such a bad option. If so many people want to be American there should be no problem with this, but of course such is not the case right?

Ms Arellano had a right to challenge her deportation in California state Court. If she lost then she should have been permitted to travel to any state that would have accepted her.

Unfortunately federal thugs will not allow that to happen. In Little Elian Gonzalez' case Governor Jeb Bush had welcome him. But to no avail

Okay, well that's a fine theory you've got there. It's inconsistent with the last 200 years of American jurisprudence, and completely impractical, but that wouldn't disqualify it from the Libertarian Party platform. No doubt Ron Paul will implement this policy once he's elected.

Then it is null and void. No legal effect.



Some of them were. But the constitution isn't.


They were born on US soil.



The 14th Amendment was never Lawfully adopted.

It has no legal effect is null and void.

But we are being governed by thugs who have substituted the Constitution for M4 Carbines.





The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land whether or not xenophobes , neonazis, skinheads, Know-nothings and other malcontents like it or not.

They can say that they don't want our alien friends here because of their ethnic background , but they can not use the pretext that they are "illegal".

Would you mind providing some credible evidence to support this statement.

What do you know? It seems we have a pick and choose, cafeteria-style Constitutionalist.

1- Historian Thomas J, DiLorenzo

2-The Unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment.

I wouldn’t consider either of these credible sources.



http://www.mises.org/about.aspx

Ludwig’s article was in a Libertarian publication, The Mises Institute. While I have no problems with Libertarians as part of our political system, history written from an extreme Libertarian position is no more objective than that written from an a Democratic or Republican viewpoint.

While Judge Perez is welcome to his opinion, other historians, like Michael Kent Cuirtis, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, accept the 14th Amendment as legitimate law, though they may question some of its interpretation.


http://www.law.wfu.edu/x2993.xml

It has been said - in error I think - that one can prove anything by using the Bible. I would suggest that one can do the same with internet links. You have provided two links, but not much evidence.

I think I see what your game is. You started off by asserting that crimes like dog fighting were not federal crimes, because there has been no specific constitutional amendment allowing prosecution of such crimes. Now you are arguing that certain constitutional amendments – up to now the 16th and 14th are not really valid. Nice little circular arguments driven by an ideological agenda.

Why? Which Historical was misrepresented?



The Constitution is a Libertarian documented therefore we must defend it.



Let me ask you: If republican goons go with you into the electoral booth , placed a .38 on your temple, tell you how to vote - would you say that you have exercised YOUR right to vote?!?




"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Hon Barry Morris Goldwater - 1964



You know the Sioux and Cheyennes asked the same question. Shortly thereafter they were slaughtered like pigs and their land stolen. But now things are different right, the white man is in charged.




Legitimate? Why? Because white Europeans prevailed?

How many Afro-Americans were sitting on the Supreme Court when - in Dred Scott v. Sandford, - it ruled that Blacks were not US Citizens? Was that a good decision? I mean, It was a Supreme Court Decision!!!

Are we forgetting that supreme courts justices are bureaucrats who are as prejudiced as the Grand Wizard?

This is typically why I don’t partake in such benefits these debates typically offer. Typically if you don’t support an open border policy it trails back to so much. Last time I checked our government has gun battles with groups like the skin heads. Also for what its worth I had absolutely nothing to do with that happened to native Americans, I also did not defend France during WW2. Also for what its worth your entire metaphorical use of Rosa Parks for your thread is totally inaccurate. African Americans or the ones you use to phrase your thread with to be blunt about it were brought here ankle to wrist on boats and sold like animals to be perfectly blunt, there is a slight difference would you not agree? Why don’t you just use any historical figure that has fought against the more ugly aspects of history for such a prose?

If we just open borders up to Mexico or south America and not to every immigrant that wants to make his or her way here with no checks or balances, what’s the point to even having a nation. You might as well say its bad that we don’t let some guy in Vietnam run for president.

You can evoke all the racial inequality garbage you want, that’s fine. Before blacks complained about being a large percentage of the prison population it was the Irish, and before that and so on and so on. It application to modern border policy is mute past emotional desires to use it as some tool that again has no real application for such. Heck even liberal Canada has a border policy, have you ever read that, why are you not making a thread about German border policies. You see, it renders itself to being nothing at that point. You are not fighting to end the evils of racism like some super hero, and if that’s what you think you are doing well that’s a pretty dim lit corner you happen to be occupying really.

America has a border policy like every other nation on the face of the planet, and it exists for good reason. I mean if you want to disband it so any person can just freely come and go in America, well the reality of that to me basically does not equate across the board to something that has been thought out to any real extent past satisfying a personal agenda that probably exists from nothing but bias if not just hate.

I also love the use of the native American aspect. You know I had to provide security for native Americans that wanted to carry out an age old cultural ritual on conservation dependent species. Of course this ancient ritual had to be updated to use .50 caliber rifles, simply put it was not tradition but some aspect to be manipulated to gain cash money, its pathetic, and so is your use of Rosa Parks name.

The US had an open border policy until about the 1860's.Then Americans - suddenly- found out that there was a "reason" we needed then and there to adopt a border policy. There were no claims , however, that the Chinese were criminals, deceased, a burden of the public fisc, radical muslims, members of Al Qaeda, enemy combatants, ..........

What t then was the "reason" we "had" to stop the open border policy ?

But even though the US adopted a Border Policy IT DID NOT APPLY to Mexicans or Canadians!!!!!!!!!! Did the Mexicans or other illegal aliens flood our cities?

...and the Irish were discriminated against becasue...?



Should the USA have open borders?

No. In this age, the burden of population growth means that any nation which opens itself to a fast breeding immigrant community it cannot accomidate is going to find itself joing the third world. The problem of South and central Americans is not that they have brown or black skin. The problem is they breed large family's they cannot afford. You only have to take a look at the over crowded slum city's of South America to understand what you are accepting if you accept open borders.

On the other hand, if the stories I read from Miami are even partly true, then the process is already underway and can't be stopped.

The US had an open border policy until about the 1860's.Then Americans - suddenly- found out that there was a "reason" we needed then and there to adopt a border policy. There were no claims , however, that the Chinese were criminals, deceased, a burden of the public fisc, radical muslims, members of Al Qaeda, enemy combatants, ..........

What t then was the "reason" we "had" to stop the open border policy ?

But even though the US adopted a Border Policy IT DID NOT APPLY to Mexicans or Canadians!!!!!!!!!! Did the Mexicans or other illegal aliens flood our cities?

Contumacious

I don't understand how your answer relates to what I wrote. You have simply repeated a statement you made earlier... Perhaps you have a point with regards to what I wrote, but I'm afraid I'm not certain what it it is.

Well, the Constitution in its entirety was written by white Europeans who 'prevailed' (many of whom owned slaves). I see no reason to dismiss part of the Constitution based on that fact while simultaneously embracing the rest. How can the words of Jefferson, an actual slave owner, be 'correct' and basically sacrosanct in your estimation whereas the fourteenth amendment cannot? Your interpretation seems rather arbitrary.

The Constitution was adopted after an extensive discourse and none of the Framers was under duress.

The 14 Amendment was "adopted " while the Southern Senators were under martial law, facing bayonets.

On what legal or Constitutional grounds would "racist" decisions be "null and void?" As noted, the Constitution was written primarily by men who owned slaves!


You say that the constitution isn't racist, and yet it was used by a Supreme Court for 80 years in justifying slavery and denying freedom to (black) men.


While it's true that Taney ruled that descendants of black Africans were not citizens, and that Dred Scott himself was born in Virginia it is not true that every negro affected by this ruling was born in the United States. Many were born in territories which were not yet states, and others were no doubt imported before the ban in 1808. Some were no doubt black-marketeered in the trangle trade with the Caribbean well after that date. Taney ruled equally against the freedom of all descendants of black Africans, regardless of their birthplace.

I'm looking forward to your answering moif's question about why we discriminated against the Irish, who were not "brown-skinned."

The Constitution isn't but the some of the bureaucrats who sat there were/are.

But you are free to show me that certain article and clause which states :

Congress and the executive have the power to discriminate against those whose skin has too much melanin and/or come from the 'hood or "el barrio".