> Which is why I also asked if she〓 would have said "Leave the
Constitution
> alone" in 1866 when the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed to give rights to
> former slaves . . .
>
Your attitude appears to be on the lines of, If you oppose any particular
proposed amendment for whatever reason, you must therefore oppose ALL amendments
no matter what they propose. Which, I'm sorry, is ridiculous. Why can't we
choose which proposed amendments to support and which to oppose based on their
individual merits (as we see them)?
(By the way, it's the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves, not the 14th. The
14th Amendment guarantees no deprivation of liberty or property except by due
process of law; also, it does declare that anyone born in the US is a
citizen, which has the effect of declaring native-born former slaves and anyone
born
in the US as a citizen; but the 13th directly negated slavery.)
This woman opposes amending the Constitution for the sole purpose of
restricting a right from a very select and relatively small group of people (so do
I).
The 13th Amendment gave rights to a very large number of people who had been
abysmally and despicably repressed and exploited for more than 2 centuries
(and, to free whom a war had just been fought). Why would ANYONE oppose the 14th
Amendment (other than a die-hard slaveholder)? Again, I simply do not
understand your point.
Tom Beck
www.prydonians.org
www.mercerjewishsingles.org
"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the
last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
