Justice Scalia is right. The Constitution doesn't protect women from discrimination.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bullsh!t. Progressivism began as a racist movement in the 19th century.

You're getting hung up on labels instead of understand what progressiveness actually is. The Founders, inspired by the Age of Enlightment, envisioned a democracy, which was progressive to the current monarchy. Unless you think they were going backwards, to time before kings?

[james&olya 1,121]

Bullsh!t. Progressivism began as a racist movement in the 19th century.

[^_^ 5,021]

You're getting hung up on labels instead of understand what progressiveness actually is. The Founders, inspired by the Age of Enlightment, envisioned a democracy, which was progressive to the current monarchy. Unless you think they were going backwards, to time before kings?

Steven, you're taking refuge in your usual polemics and not answering the questions being posed.

1. As a general rule, do you believe the written word should be interpreted with the intent of the authors in mind?

2. Can you quote specifics from the deliberations of the 39th Congress which leads you to believe they intended for the 14th Amendment to protect women from discrimination?

Answer the questions, please.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, it's the intent of the authors that matters. This is the standard we use for everything, but suddenly for the Constitution we need to get all Zen about it?

Truth isn't anchored on personality. It transcends beyond the messenger, who himself (or herself) may not fully realize that truth, and perhaps that realization is a century or two from being realized.

[^_^ 5,021]

Truth isn't anchored on personality. It transcends beyond the messenger, who himself (or herself) may not fully realize that truth, and perhaps that realization is a century or two from being realized.

Hey Buddha, we're not talking about 'truth'.

We're talking about words written by men.

Are those words to be interpreted with the authors intent in mind or interpreted based on whatever is most convenient for you?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You're getting hung up on labels instead of understand what progressiveness actually is. The Founders, inspired by the Age of Enlightment, envisioned a democracy, which was progressive to the current monarchy. Unless you think they were going backwards, to time before kings?

So, the term "Progressive" transcends all other uses of the word? Thank you for clarifying that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

1. As a general rule, do you believe the written word should be interpreted with the intent of the authors in mind?

Intent can be an elusive term because if by intent do we mean that Jefferson never fully envisioned that "all men are created equal," would ever apply to women or perhaps he envisioned that someday, women as well as blacks would enjoy the same freedoms as white me did during his time. There were Abolitionists during his time and there were feminists. Was he sympathetic to their cause or did he just chuckle when they tried to turn his own words against him?

2. Can you quote specifics from the deliberations of the 39th Congress which leads you to believe they intended for the 14th Amendment to protect women from discrimination?

Equal Protection Clause: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Even if in legal terms, women were legally regarded as property and not as persons (which I doubt), that doesn't negate the fact that we do now realize the truth - that women are in fact, persons.

Hey Buddha, we're not talking about 'truth'.

We're talking about words written by men.

Are those words to be interpreted with the authors intent in mind or interpreted based on whatever is most convenient for you?

What do you think, "we hold these truths to be self evident" means?

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

leave it to aj to turn a dreary thread like this one into something worthwhile.

[^_^ 5,021]

Intent can be an elusive term ...

Indeed it can. And yet, it can also be very clear.

Based on your readings of the deliberations of the 39th Congress, do you believe the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment is clear?

Equal Protection Clause: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

My question to you was regarding the deliberations that went into writing that language. You chose to answer the question by creatively interpreting the language of my question

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, the term "Progressive" transcends all other uses of the word? Thank you for clarifying that.

Do you like chocolate? I love chocolate. If I started a political movement, called "chocolate," would you then think that all references to chocolate were about my political movement?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Indeed it can. And yet, it can also be very clear.

Based on your readings of the deliberations of the 39th Congress, do you believe the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment is clear?

My question to you was regarding the deliberations that went into writing that language. You chose to answer the question by creatively interpreting the language of my question

I'm tired. Can I leave my computer now?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon. The film presented a distorted portrait of the South after the Civil War, glorifying the Ku Klux Klan and denigrating blacks. It falsified the period of Reconstruction by presenting blacks as dominating Southern whites (almost all of whom are noble in the film) and sexually forcing themselves upon white women. The Klan was portrayed as the South's savior from this alleged tyranny. Not only was this portrayal untrue, it was the opposite of what actually happened. During Reconstruction, whites dominated blacks and assaulted black women. The Klan was primarily a white terrorist organization that carried out hundreds of murders.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_birth.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Do you like chocolate? I love chocolate. If I started a political movement, called "chocolate," would you then think that all references to chocolate were about my political movement?

So, Progressives have nothing to do with progress? Thanks again for the clarification.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves. Jefferson raping his slave girls wasn't a characteristic of the ideals that he espoused in the creation of our country any more than Woodrow Wilson's bigotry was a characteristic of the Progressive Movement.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves. Jefferson raping his slave girls wasn't a characteristic of the ideals that he espoused in the creation of our country any more than Woodrow Wilson's bigotry was a characteristic of the Progressive Movement.

He did? Or, do you have just the fictionalized accounts to support your premise?