First, there's that in the society he's referring to, Scalia would have been one of those papist dagoes here to convert the USA to the evils of Popery and to turn the United States into a dictatorship dominated by the Bishop of Rome
Okay.
Second, when he refers to its original protection it was designed to ensure citizenship for slaves liberated by the 13th Amendment, whose citizenship had never been granted for what I hope should be a blatantly obvious reason by the statesmen of the Old South.
Okay.
Third, people like Thaddeus Stevens wanted an amendment that was positive in language, not a negative one, and were forced to accept the negative one after extreme backlash from ex-Confederates and the large racist bloc in the North.
Er...
. Fourth, the idea of a large standing army is very much counter to the original design of the Founders, they hated and feared the very idea as a lead-in to tyranny, vividly illustrated at the time by Catherine II's repression of the only truly popular revolution in Russian history.
But what does the Constitution say?
I'm not really sure you're thinking this one through.
Not that facts ever trouble reactionaries as it is, but eh......oh, and Scalia also considered the Citizens' United decision constitutional despite the fact that not even Alexander Hamilton, the most pro-Industrialization big-government Founder of them all considered a corporation a "person". A liar and a hypocrite.
Corporations as people wasn't really part of Citizen's United. You know that, right? In fact, the words "people" or "person" only appear three total times in the text (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html), never in the context of corporate personhood.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 25/11/10 23:53 (UTC)Okay.
Second, when he refers to its original protection it was designed to ensure citizenship for slaves liberated by the 13th Amendment, whose citizenship had never been granted for what I hope should be a blatantly obvious reason by the statesmen of the Old South.
Okay.
Third, people like Thaddeus Stevens wanted an amendment that was positive in language, not a negative one, and were forced to accept the negative one after extreme backlash from ex-Confederates and the large racist bloc in the North.
Er...
. Fourth, the idea of a large standing army is very much counter to the original design of the Founders, they hated and feared the very idea as a lead-in to tyranny, vividly illustrated at the time by Catherine II's repression of the only truly popular revolution in Russian history.
But what does the Constitution say?
I'm not really sure you're thinking this one through.
Not that facts ever trouble reactionaries as it is, but eh......oh, and Scalia also considered the Citizens' United decision constitutional despite the fact that not even Alexander Hamilton, the most pro-Industrialization big-government Founder of them all considered a corporation a "person". A liar and a hypocrite.
Corporations as people wasn't really part of Citizen's United. You know that, right? In fact, the words "people" or "person" only appear three total times in the text (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html), never in the context of corporate personhood.