RSS
American “conservatives” have two blind spots: They refuse to understand the importance of race, and they have an almost idolatrous love of the US Constitution. Now, a remarkable paper by a law student at the University of Florida explains that a proper understanding of the Constitution requires an appreciation of the importance of race.
In just 20 pages, Preston Terry Damsky argues that the primary source of the legitimacy of the Constitution is not in its language, but in what gave rise to: the sovereignty of the people. Furthermore, “the people” is not just whoever happened to be living here, but the particular people who established a nation-state by means of the Constitution. “National conservatism posits that, regardless of certain textual provisions with a seemingly open ended scope of application, the Constitution’s establishment of a nation-state under the sovereignty of the People must be considered its paramount purpose which may not be permissibly undermined by any governmental acts or omissions absent the direct and unambiguous consent of the People.”
Mr. Damsky argues that originalist interpretations must rely either on what legislators meant when they wrote laws (“original intent”) or what an ordinary speaker of the language would have understood (“original public meaning”). The latter allows a more objective understanding. Mr. Damsky says that the Preamble clearly states that “We The People” are the sovereign constituent power, and that the Constitution is established for “ourselves and our Posterity.” Crucially, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that popular sovereignty legitimizes and predates the constitutional order.
Yet who are “the People?” Mr. Damsky argues that the ratification process, and the debates surrounding it, “produced the controlling definition of the People for the purposes of constitutional interpretation.” Thus, The Federalist Papers becomes a valid source of understanding what the Framers meant by “the People,” the identifiable, sovereign entity capable of political action prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Here, Mr. Damsky cites familiar ground:
- John Jay’s observation in Federalist No. 2 that Americans are “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs” and united by the experience of the Revolutionary War.
- James Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 14 that the Union is built upon “the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens [and] the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights.”
- John Dickinson’s optimism because “the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners and customs.”
- Roger Sherman’s opposition to the introduction of African slaves because incoming whites are those “who really enrich and strengthen a country.”
- Charles Pinckney’s flat contention that at the formation of the Constitution, “there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could have ever existed in it.”
- Thomas Jefferson’s call for the Western Hemisphere to be dominated by whites, “a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, & by similar laws,” without “either blot or mixture on that surface.”
- Alexander Hamilton’s recognition that “foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind” and fears that “incorporating a large number of foreigners” will divide the country.
The Naturalization Act of 1790, ratified even before the Bill of Rights, limited naturalization to free white people of good character. Mr. Damsky cites the paper The “Free White Person” Clause of the Naturalization Act of 1790 as Super-Statute by Gabriel Chin and Paul Finkelman to support this bill’s importance. The abstract in The William & Mary Law Review argues:
The racial restriction, as modified, would remain in effect until 1952, inducing White immigration and discouraging that of others. Through the mechanism of the “declaration of intent to naturalize,” added in a 1795 amendment, Congress made it possible for state and federal law to grant political and economic rights to White immigrants immediately upon arrival while ensuring that non-White immigrants could never enjoy them. The Naturalization Act of 1790 helps explain why, for example, as late as 1960, more than 99 percent of Americans were White or Black. It also resolves the question of the racial attitudes of the Framers — whether or not they supported slavery, a majority of them unambiguously conceived of the United States as a White country.
Notwithstanding its racism, the Naturalization Act of 1790 has earned recognition as among the most effective pieces of legislation ever enacted by Congress. It deserves a place of dishonor alongside segregation laws, the Indian Removal Act, prohibitions on interracial marriage, and other laws establishing White supremacy.
The authors and Mr. Damsky agree on the facts: The country was founded as a white country. It has since become something else, but the legitimacy of this multiracial, multicultural project is questionable. Those who approve of the Great Replacement may call it justice, but it is not consistent with the Constitution or the Founding. Mr. Damsky argues that the racial consensus of the Founders on such an important, fundamental point means that “the People” and “posterity” must “likewise be interpreted in a nationalist light.”
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that “the People” was a “term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution,” referring to a “class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” Mr. Damsky says that this means the American national community. However, Rehnquist believed that people who are not part of the country could be considered “part of that community” through a sufficient connection, despite the clearly inferior status of aliens.
Yet in District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia built on this definition and wrote a majority opinion that “directly acknowledged the historical, racial, and exclusionary identity of the People.”
Mr. Damsky writes:
Scalia first explained that “in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset” and then cited the two-prong definition of the People provided in Verdugo-Urquidez in support of this conclusion. Later in the opinion, Scalia cited two antebellum state court cases “holding that the Constitution did not extend to free blacks” in order to show that in the early 19th century, many state courts “indicated that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to militia service, though subject to certain restrictions.” Notably, Scalia made no effort to criticize these opinions’ holding that Blacks did not possess the right to bear arms. In arguing that the Second Amendment applies to all of the People and citing these antebellum cases in support of his reasoning, Scalia implicitly acknowledged that in the antebellum period, Blacks were not a part of the People. Incredibly, 151 years after Dred Scott, five members of the Court (with no member undercutting or qualifying the opinion’s analysis in a concurring opinion) ostensibly vindicated the legal correctness of Chief Justice Roger Taney’s ruling that Blacks “formed no part of the people who framed and adopted [the Declaration of Independence]” and were not a part of “the sovereignty of the States” or the sovereignty of the country as a whole, which led Taney to conclude Blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Mr. Damsky says national constitutionalism relies on three primary points:
- It promotes and guards popular sovereignty
- It relies on the distinction between the superior constituent power of the sovereign People and the inferior constituted power of the Constitution and government (the principal-agent analogy)
- The People share a biological relation describable by reference to the original understanding of who formed the People — and who could be permitted to enter the ranks of the People — in and about the time the Constitution was ratified.
Borrowing from the constitutional theories of Carl Schmitt, Mr. Damsky identifies the sovereignty of the People as superior to the language of the Constitution itself. Therefore, “if an individual constitutional provision would prevent the effective, beneficial exercise of power by government on behalf of the People, particularly when the would-be exercise of power is directed at those who are not a part of the People, judges should consider permitting a necessary, limited exception to the individual provision, at least in times of emergency.” In short, the nation is the source of legitimacy, and it grants legitimacy to the Constitution as its agent. More than this, the writings of the Framers clearly show that the nation, as conceived, is exclusively white.
The government has already taken actions that undermine the People, so courts are justified in taking drastic measures. “The challenge non-White immigration and naturalization pose to the sovereignty of the People represents a constitutional emergency our Founders seemingly never anticipated,” Mr. Damsky writes. “This emergency threatens to overturn the Constitution itself by turning American government against the People and securing government’s benefits primarily for other peoples and their posterity.”
National constitutionalism thus is not merely a defensive legal doctrine, but an offensive one. Mr. Damsky identifies four possible courses of action.
- Courts should give effect to the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause and order the federal government to secure our borders against criminal infiltrators and transnational criminal organizations.
- Courts should subject immigration and naturalization laws to judicial review and apply strict scrutiny to those laws permitting non-White immigration and naturalization.
- Courts should stop applying equal protection to laws discriminating against criminal infiltrators and apply rational basis review to alienage classifications discriminating against lawful immigrants.
- Courts should not only reconsider constitutional birthright citizenship for children of immigrants who are citizens or subjects of another country, but they should challenge the constitutionality of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments altogether. (They granted citizenship to blacks and gave them the vote.)
Some of this may sound fanciful, but two elements are already the subject of fierce legal battles. The duty of the federal government to defend against invasion is the power the Trump Administration claims to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Trump Administration has already issued an executive order removing birthright citizenship, which the Supreme Court will almost certainly have to rule on.
Yet what is truly important about this is that Mr. Damsky has built the theoretical framework for a defense of racially aware American nationalism that does not renounce adherence to the Constitution so beloved of the American Right. A wholesale revolution to destroy all our institutions is not necessary. Furthermore, he has identified within the Constitution what many white advocates would say America has fatally lacked — a recognition that America was founded by and for white people. “The People,” as used by the Framers, clearly referred only to whites. Therefore, laws that could conceivably challenge the white majority status must be rejected because they are “anathema to the implicit limitations, entailed by popular sovereignty, placed upon the constituted power of the nation-state.”
Mr. Damsky’s conclusion recognizes that the constitutional order cannot be separated from its racial roots:
Our Constitution will survive only if “the people share a common, historic commitment to certain simple but fundamental principles which preserve their freedom.” One of those principles, accepted by our Founders who as a whole “unambiguously conceived of the United States as a White country,” was nationalism — specifically, racial nationalism. If we abandon that principle while turning over America to a non-White majority, a majority that will not share a common, historic commitment to anything, what else shall we abandon along the way? If non-Whites believe that America’s white nationalist founding “deserves a place of dishonor” in our history, then — given the fundamentality of this principle in the original constitutional framework — what is to stop any other constitutional provision from being similarly repudiated?
The University of Florida recognized Mr. Damsky’s paper with an award presented by US District Court Judge John L. Badalamenti. Much of what Mr. Damsky argued is perfectly consistent with what academic authorities in countless law schools have argued: America was founded by and for whites, and this shapes our institutions. It is not even a particularly controversial view among liberals.
Critical Legal Studies, which have swept through law schools, claim that the law is a legacy of racism, and can be overturned or ignored in the name of higher ideals. Thus, CNN “legal expert” Elie Mystal has famously argued that he should not have to care about a Constitution written “by the slavers,” and that every law before 1965 should be considered “presumptively unconstitutional.” That argument works both ways: all those post-1965 laws that hurt the interests of “the People” should be thrown out. The opinions of blacks who were never intended to be (and still are not) part of the American nation should be disregarded in line with Roger Taney’s guidance.
Academics and journalists don’t object to Mr. Damsky’s explanation of the Constitution’s premises; they object to his view that these premises are a good thing rather than a source of “dishonor.” The New York Times’s article entitled “A White Nationalist Wrote a Law School Paper Promoting Racist Views. It Won Him An Award” is bizarre coming from the publication that promoted the 1619 Project. Are we now to believe the Constitution and the Framers were not “racist”? If they were, as anyone who believes in “Critical Legal Studies” or any aspect of DEI accepts, why should blacks or any other non-whites get to claim the Constitution or American identity? We all agree that it belongs to us alone; we just disagree about whether that is good or bad.
The University of Florida has since banned Mr. Damsky from campus. However, it was not because of his paper but because of Mr. Damsky’s social media comments about Jews. Most reports on this specifically claim he said Jews must be abolished by any means necessary. Yet he equated this precisely to what Harvard professor Noel Ignatiev, editor of Race Traitor, said about whites. Mr. Damsky says his comments are protected by the First Amendment and were not a violent threat. If what Mr. Damsky said is a “call to violence,” then so too is what the Noel Ignatiev said, and it never seemed to hurt his career, let alone get him banned from campus.
This controversy continues. Certainly, if Mr. Damsky can be considered “violent” for these comments, countless non-whites who rage against “whiteness” are also “violent.” However, the paper itself does not touch on these issues and can be judged on its own merits.
All white advocates should read it. If we can ever achieve any kind of state power in the United States, and specifically in the court system, Mr. Damsky may have given us the legal case for restoring America’s constitutional legitimacy by restoring its status as a White Republic.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
“The Naturalization Act of 1790, ratified even before the Bill of Rights, limited naturalization to free white people of good character. ”
Reality Fact:
“Naturalization” is _not_ the same as “immigration”. Not even close.
The word “immigration” is not even mentioned in the constitution.
Reality Fact:
The federal government has no constitutional authority given to it by the states to control, or be involved in any way, with immigration into the various states . It only has state granted authority regarding the naturalization process.
Immigration is supposed to be an individual state issue as per 10th amendment .
Song: “New Revolution”:
“We got to start us a new revolution,
Get back to the old constitution,
Got to stand up and fight for the whole Bill of Rights,
It’s time to start over again”:
Video Link
Regards, onebornfree
Actually “the People” are not whites in general, but White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males.
Always good to remember that the Constitution was drafted in absolute secrecy and presented to select ratifying conventions of hand-picked delegates for approval. This was not the announced intent or plan of the convention. Shays Rebellion by Continental Army veterans in Massachusetts the previous year was the motivation for what was essentially a coup d’etat against the Articles of Confederation. That uprising sent shockwaves through the new aristocracy, which realized to its horror that there were tens of thousands of armed combat veterans abroad in the land, and not all of them were pleased with the new order. As rebel Captain Shays well put it, “we did not overthrow a wise king to be ruled by shopkeepers.” The elite delegates crafted a central government of unprecedented powers, so great that some barons demanded a Bill of Rights (like the one they had enjoyed as English subjects since 1689), so their local privileges could not be limited for this new “common welfare.” To understand what these men truly wrought, think about why only 43,782 men out of an American population of almost four mullion were allowed to cast votes in the first national election of 1788-89. Don’t let misplaced hero worship blind you to the fact that their lofty words about liberty do not describe what we understand as freedom today.
True dat, both shitcons and shitlibs should quit humping the constitution. Your constitution’s gone. You’re not getting it back. You lived your whole life under a Gestapo with arbitrary power. Look it up, the Central Intelligence Agency Act passed in 1949.
It’s just as well, your halfassed obsolete revoked constitutional rights aren’t worth jack shit. No country has modeled their constitution on the US for a century. So you might as well be telling us about the Code of Hammurabi.
If you ever get your shit together and knock over your failed state and get a real one, your next government will have to meet world standards. Why? Does your successor state want recognition? You got to check the boxes. Oh, your successor state needs a voice in international institutions and fora? Sign here. You want normal trade relations? Well… let’s review your obligations and commitments…
If you want to live in a sovereign state without international intervention and supervision, your state papers must commit to the following:
– The UN Charter
– The Rome Statute
– The UDHR, ICESCR, and ICCPR
– Any of these instruments the US has ratified – as a minimum:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/core-international-human-rights-instruments-and-their-monitoring-bodies
Don’t bitch to me, I didn’t write the rules. You will do this because when your failed state finally crumbles to shit you will grab in desperation for support. And there’ll be nothing but this to hold onto. Ask the Soviets.
I think we all see how it works when non-Whites and especially blacks are given constitutional rights. There is no more dangerous combination than blacks having a right to firearms.
There were a lot of Scotsmen, Welshmen, Dutchmen and Germans along with a handful of Irishmen among those revolutionaries. Washington purposely dropped the requirement that Catholics be banned from the Continental Army in order to bring Maryland into the fray. I do wonder if they would have created a stronger nation had they required a national religion.
Regardless, getting the Constitution and the country back would take more than anyone is willing to give nowadays. The only hope for Whitey is a libertarian-republican takeover that minimizes the size and power of the federal government and restores freedoms to individuals so they can make the decision to separate themselves from the descendants of freed slaves.
European diversity, not worldwide diversity. If whites are so bad, why do people of color follow us everywhere? “Its nice here” refers to a majority white area, then its ruined by people who don’t have the brains or initiative to create their own “nice area”. Why are white nations being flooded with non whites? Because its “nice here”. Not anymore. Unless and until we the people are willing to bath in the blood of the proponents of the Kalergi plan nothing will save us from destruction. If you hate us so much then leave, you’re right, we never did like you and never will. Homoerectus and religious throwbacks ruining every white nation. Gee, thanks cunt politicians.
Refresh my memory, what was it Lady Liberty said to all applicable people of the world? Heed that or bow to the “Whites Only” sign Trump is hanging around her neck.
I beg to differ. More dangerous is someone like you using your mouth as a firearm.
Look around, I would guess in today’s America WASPs comprise only about 30 million of “the People.” And that number is shrinking daily.
Your sophistry is so extreme it crosses the line into an outright boldfaced lie.
The constitution does not use the word “immigration”. Instead, it uses the word “migration”.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:
“The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by congress prior to the year one thousand eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”
Prior to 1808, congress could restrict immigration via a $10/head tax in the original 13 states.
Prior to 1808, congress could restrict immigration in any manner it chose in the territories and in new states beyond the original 13.
Starting January 1 1808, congress can restrict immigration in any manner it chose in all states and territories. (On January 1, 1808, congress promptly exercised this power and banned the immigration of slaves.)
Before and after 1808 the states also retained the power to restrict immigration in any manner. All states exercised this power prior to 1808 to ban or regulate the immigration of slaves, and they have never lost this power.
Both the states and congress have the right to ban immigration, and neither has the right to prevent the other from banning immigration. If a given state enacts an immigration moratorium within its own borders, foreigners would need to be naturalized before they could enter that state. But if congress enacts an immigration moratorium, no state can nullify that moratorium within its own borders.
and one more thing, take your vibrant culture and stick it up your ass. white nations can survive without bodegas and 40 IQ rapists.
Learn not to feed the hasbara and acknowledge what (((they))) say. The stupid racist incendiary stuff on Unz is meant to mask the signal as much as possible.
Another article where the author ignores the root cause of America no longer being a white country: the Jews and their control of the United States of America. The constitution wasn’t written for Jews either, but the author thinks that he can get away with not addressing the fact that Jews control America and have reinterpreted its constitution to apply to Jews and non-whites. There won’t be a white America until all the Jews are expelled from America.
Definitely true expect Thomas Jefferson was Welsh I think Celtic origin. But I would include all Western and Central European males since there is a deep common cultural connections regarding Christian monarchy, the Medieval times even a connection going back to the Roman Republic. Remember Charlemagne crowned himself a Holy Roman Emperor back in early medieval times. As far as negros and others definitely not. Oh by the way does that nigger living in my home town of New York still have his borrowed or stolen name of Charlemagne? What a pathetic primitive groid. It shows everybody how lame these primitives are stealing European ethnic sir names that these groids would not even know about if they weren’t allowed to live with us and would not even naturally have to begin with since they are from a different continent and culture. Truly parasitic.
But “white” meant something different back then.
Benjamin Franklin only included Anglo-Saxons and a few northern Europeans as “white”.
Many European names are of Hebrew/semitic origin (Joe,Tom, Lisa, etc …).
If this author, along with others like him, spent as much time writing articles as being effectual in the real world then there might be some meaningful change borne.
As such is now, these articles are mere prison diaries written in a prison cell built and inhabited by the author.
Uhh, a statue isn’t policy or law–and a tacked on propaganda poem by a Jewess isn’t either.
BTW, the statue is is oriented so it can welcome the ships from Europe entering the harbor.
From Europe.
Gregory Hood: “The Constitution Was Written for Whites”
Then why didn’t it say so?
Uhh, a gifted statue isn’t policy or law–and a tacked on propaganda poem by a Jewess isn’t either.
BTW, the statue is is oriented so it can welcome the ships from Europe entering the harbor.
From Europe.
Bullschitt.
But yeah, I’m sure Franklin and Jeffersion had no use for Galileo, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dante, or Socrates…
Go ahead and give me their African equivalents.
Mr Damsky writes:
(I don’t know either what Noel Ignatiev meant.)
Portugal and Spain did “abolish the Jews” (of course, they are now sorry about that), when (500 years ago or what-not) they mandated Jews to drop their religion and become Catholics:
Many Jews fled, such as Baruch Spinoza’s father;
Many Jews stayed and pretended to be Catholics, whilst hiding their true convictions;
Many Jews assimilated, to the point some Iberians don’t even know they’ve, in part, Jewish roots.
If Mr Damsky wants THAT, I’m not sure the Framers would approve. (I’d think they would not.)
The Founding Fathers incorporated Religious Liberty into the Constitution – knowing there were Jews in America before and after the Revolution and making NO effort for them to leave or to adhere to Christianity.
You mean that Jewess Emma Lazarus and her stupid poem? This ISN”T the law of the land! It’s a fucking poem! Stop trying to conflate actual law with meaningless tripe!
The Left, Centre and Right agree: Rights are universal!
(That might come, originally, from Christianity.)
Therefore, according to the Left: “no human being is illegal” and “non-citizens should be allowed to vote”.
The Left makes total sense, the Right does not.
(Maybe Conservatism, Inc. is not principled on THAT, because, from time to time, they want to bomb Muslims!)
Anyway,
Judge Roger Taney was RIGHT on his interpretation of the Constitution:
Non-citizens, like Blacks, can be enslaved at will.
(Of course, I, personally, don’t want Slavery around.)
Ironically, Conservatism, Inc. thinks something WORSE than Slavery should be LEGAL towards non-citizens: Killing them. (Especially, if they’re Muslims.)
Or, at least, if killing’s too gruesome: torturing them, rather…
That’s irrelevant. Many early Americans admired the Hebrew prophets & Hammurabi, but that’s irrelevant too.
A 10-second Internet search on Benjamin Franklin and his views of race will show he only counted British and some northern European as “white”; the rest were tawny and black etc …
I don’t get why the idea that the notion of a “white race” was an evolving idea bothers you so much?
You think this idea of a “white race” is timeless & universal?
Next you’ll tell me the Romans regarded themselves as “white” along with other Europeans.
In many other countries “white” is used as just a descriptive term for anyone with lighter skin, not a racial term.
Only in Europe in the late 1700’s did this idea of “Whiteness” as a racial term begin, and even then it took a while to evolve into “white=European only”.
Heck, to this day Middle Easterners are considered “white” on government form.
Either it was Jefferson or Franklin, called Swedes “tawny” or “swarthy”; clearly, no knowledge of Sweden at all. It’s funny given certainly there were people of Swedish ancestry (at least, in part) in America back then.¹
Heck, so ironic (!): even Hitler himself considered Sweden “more Aryan” than his own Germany!
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden
“The constitution does not use the word “immigration”. Instead, it uses the word “migration””
And you (conveniently😉) believe that these two words have the exact same meaning?😏
And you accuse me of sophistry? Talk about ” the pot calling the kettle black”!😆
As I said before, the word immigration does not even appear in the constitution.
“Both the states and congress have the right to ban immigration,”
No, constitutionally, only the states have the power to ban/allow immigration (within their own borders). The federal government has no business being involved in any way. That’s just a clear example of what federalism’s supposed to be all about (and of what nitwits like you obviously oppose).
Regards, onebornfree
For your stupidity, I sentence you to 10 years in Jackson, Mississippi.
Ok, and like the author of this article said if blacks want to only accept those parts of the Constitution they agree with while trashing the rest as constructs written by evil white men then whites should not consider blacks protected by that document which will mean bad things for them.
Preston Damsky makes an airtight case that the Constitution was written exclusively for white people and that America was intended to be a white ethnostate. Many of the founders didn’t even want immigration from mainland Europe since they thought they would remain committed to ideals of government that were now antithetical to those of the Constitution. So any argument that the founders desired American to accept immigrants from the non-white world and become a third world feeding and breeding zone such as we’ve become since the Jewish inspired 1965 immigration act is not only patently absurd but false.
While I agree with your last sentence, I confess I cannot imagine any likely sequence of events leading to such a consequence. Can you? Please enlighten us.
Are we sure about that one?
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-1M2WcXXH6ZY%2FVrjmi_3g-qI%2FAAAAAAAACuE%2FZp0b5vucsfM%2Fs1600%2F1248556.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=3d4199ed330e37db6c55737f11d2ef75c252c657f04538dd603f082cd672cc83
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.noopooh.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F01%2FMoor-In-America.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=004fcff0689561e42a6a57dd892ce5e29e2b62b22e3469cd1648cbf180813acc
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/335377503471429962/
President Jefferson and every member of both houses of congress, including men who were present at the constitutional convention and men who were members of the state legislatures which ratified the constitution, unanimously passed what they considered to be a constitutional law when they banned the immigration of slaves in the year 1808.
And none of the surviving members of the constitutional convention outside congress objected to the constitutionality of this law.
And none of the surviving members of any of the state legislatures which ratified the constitution objected to the constitutionality of this law.
And not one single person of the entire founding generation in the entire United States of America objected to the constitutionality of this law.
And in all the subsequent 217 years of American history no one, not even the fire eaters who wanted to repeal this law, ever objected to the constitutionality of this law.
Because everyone with an ounce of common sense understands that “migration or importation of such persons” means the exact same thing as “immigration” – people moving from one country to another, which congress has regulated for 217 years, beginning in 1808, in a series of eminently constitutional laws.
Well, I mean, you did follow the Africans to Africa, the Injuns to America, the Tongans to the South Pacific, the Abos to Austrailia…
I think there are that many of you at Burning Spear every year.
If the constitution were written for whites, it would have explicitly stated as much. It didn’t because the USA was never intended to be exclusive to whites.
Hulkamania: “If the constitution were written for whites, it would have explicitly stated as much. It didn’t because the USA was never intended to be exclusive to whites. ”
Exactly.
The argument that they simply forgot to be explicit about race and assumed everyone knew what they were talking about isn’t at all convincing. To understand why they were intentionally vague about it, consider the times and what they were trying to accomplish, which was the unification of the new country. If they had specified white, they would have had to define it, and that would have been a source of division, just as it is today. Above, we have commenters questioning whether Swedes are white, or Jews are white, or even whether there is such a thing as the white race. Though based in empirical observation, there is something irreducibly subjective about any taxonomy. How to classify an organism is less a fact than an opinion about facts.
This is similar to the reason the Founders omitted to say that the citizens of the new country must be Christian. In this very forum, we constantly hear from self-described Christians who claim that this or that other sect of self-described Christians aren’t really “true” Christians. Any attempt to define Christianity by the Founders would likewise have been divisive. Therefore they intentionally omitted that as a requirement, although many of them might have hoped for it and expected it.
Nah, this dog is too old for that shit. But I do have a grandson who goes to something called “Reggae Rise Up” they have over there in FL. The little bastard doesn’t know it yet but he’s outta the will.
Plus “all rapists are human.”
Ergo, rape is no big deal since, you know, it’s “just” illegal.
Right?
Elie Mystal….
https://tinyurl.com/23umkz3m
…looks like Granny Klump in the movie The Nutty Professor:
Elie’s prolly just as smart, too.
Nignogs forget that Whites were “minorities” on plantations, too….but still ran ’em. (<:)
Odd that you essentially agree with the author of the infamous 1619 Project, that the US Constitution is, in the words of the flamboyant Abolitionist W. L. Garrison “A Covenant with Death and an Agreement with Hell” in that it does not address the racial problem. In fact the great human rights champion Fred Douglass (whose name is prominent by its absence in the 1619 screed) disagreed so strongly that he split with Garrison and his virtue signaling extremist Puritans on this very point.
The Constitution never uses the word “slave” but instead employs the term “persons from whom service is due.” This led some to see by 1837 that the Founders had left a path to attack slavery for a future generation so inclined, as the Fifth Amendment specifically pledges that no “person” may be deprived of life or liberty except under very specific conditions. The six slaveholding states were orders of magnitude wealthier than the seven northern states which were gripped in a severe postwar depression in 1787, and so had to compromise on this all-important point. Interestingly slaveholder James Madison made this astonishing disclosure in his Federalist Number 54, saying the proposed constitution “views them [slaves] in the mixed character of persons and property . . . it is admitted that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away [emphasis added], the Negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.”
Is that like the same way that the Muslims “followed” the Christians into Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tripolitania, Morocco, Spain, Anatolia, and the Balkans… and kept on “following” them all the way to the gates of Vienna? Question: is Turkey considered “stolen land” in your mind? Should the Turks have to make constant guilty “land acknowledgments” to the people they attacked, raped and enslaved while acquiring it? How about reparations from the whole of dar-al-Islam to the whole of Christendom?
If you’re going to use a retarded metaphor in service of a dog-tired stale accusation, at least be amusing about it, instead of such a damn bore. And a boor. But not a Boer.
A White person in 1789 America or North America would refer to descent from the British Islands, Holland, or Germany. The French, for example, were a very different case. Tocqueville took note of that in his observations of America and later noted that England and France were two remarkably different people only separated by a ditch. Orwell made fun of the deeply run and peculiar characteristics separating the English, Spanish, Italian, and French. Tocqueville held that a single type of government was not subtable for different people, and he was speaking only of white people.
Franklin called Germans swarthy, not Swedes.
Very stupid reply. Whites didn’t “follow” any of those people you mentioned. They discovered them in their primitive condition, in which they would have remained in perpetuity had the Whites never encountered them.
It happened nothing like that.
Everything you have ever learned in the media, or in school is false. Basically half truths, when not a complete fabrication.
This Old Sport, is the secret of the upcoming decade. The word “apocalypse” is a Greek word meaning “uncovering” and starting in 2030, and because of me you get it 4.5 years early; You’re welcome.
https://www.facebook.com/HistoryHit/photos/history-is-a-set-of-lies-agreed-upon-napoleon-bonaparte/1882643835133999/?_rdr
https://twitter.com/BlkHistStudies/status/1127656391987073024