If thats what you got of it...But for meeee....is if change the constitution to fit todays needs then what will be changed next. Should we change it?
Push Hard, Press Forward
We should definitely not change the Constitution in any way to fit current beliefs. Ever.
I'm pretty sure this whole racial equality thing is a fad and those darn colored folk will be back to being 3/5 of a person in no time.
FYI to everyone else - it is a "pro" firearms video from a rightwing gun-advocacy group.
I don't remember the 3/5 Compromise being in the Constitution....
I don't remember the 3/5 Compromise being in the Constitution....
If thats what you got of it...But for meeee....is if change the constitution to fit todays needs then what will be changed next. Should we change it?
Push Hard, Press Forward
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution has the 3/5s Compromise. .
EDIT: Dang, AcademyFriend1 beat me to it!
If thats what you got of it...But for meeee....is if change the constitution to fit todays needs then what will be changed next. Should we change it?
Push Hard, Press Forward
You were probably being facetious, LITs, but you happened to hit my "former lawyer current history teacher sweet spot."
The Three Fifths Compromise was one of the major compromises of the Constitutional Convention -- the states with high slave populations wanted some assurance that their current economic power/contributions would be reflected in the political balance of power. This compromise made it into the Constitution in Article I, section 2, paragraph 3. It is a little hard to spot because the framers never used the word slavery in the Constitution, although there are three instances in the Constitution (including the Three Fifths Clause) in which slavery is explicitly dealt with in the Constitution. (Identifying the three instances often pops up as a multiple choice question on the A.P. U.S. History exam.)
Here's the language in question -- so lawyerly as to be almost totally unremarkable: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
I don't remember the 3/5 Compromise being in the Constitution....
I do not own guns. The police in my town respond within 45 seconds anywhere in town, anytime. I live in an area without grizzly bears or mountain lions. If i did I would not only own but carry guns.
So many aspects of gun control. I do think that there will ever be enough states to support overturning the second amendment. There can be executive and legislative action to control guns. Such as the current ammo run by the government. There was the National Firearms Act in 1934 which taxed guns it cited as banned.
And it got its test as constitutional law thanks to Jack Miller, a member of the O'Malley Gang, famed for pulling off one of the few simultaneous heists of two banks. After the gang was finally broken by law enforcement in 1936, Miller was picked up with an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, one of the weapons so heavily taxed by the NFA. So the U.S. attorney brought him up on charges of what amounted to tax evasion. The case made it to the Supreme Court as U.S. v. Miller, in which it was decided:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
There can be action or taxation without constitutional change. It would be good for both sides to work it out.
The 3/5s was the result of a Civil War..
I see things change today just because a group may feel excluded and say you need to come out of the Stone Age. For example: The largest peace movement ever, Boy Scouts of America, change a 100-year-old policy. Is it good? Is it bad? Only time will tell. But scouting has prepared many students for the Service Academies.
So changing the constitution for the sake of updating it may or my not be good for our core values as a nation.
What national core value, exactly, is protected by the Boy Scouts excluding people based on their sexual orientation?
The one that says a private organization don't have to do everything for everyone. Something about a limitation of the government?