Things that make you say hmm!

[1985_BMW318i]

During my research this day of the US Constitution I found a item that clearly shows that the North had no right to force the removal of slavery on the southern states. NOW before anyone gets upset let me make myself perfectly clear. I do not now or have I ever believed any human should be subjected to slavery. I'm simply pointing out a simple statement in our original Constitution that can be taken in different ways. While I truly believe the US is the greatest country on earth we hold principals based on our Constitution and Bill of Rights that might need further defining before we force ourselves on others any further. Naki I think you might understand what I'm trying to convey and could probably assist with your outsiders view which is normally rational. With that said let me continue.

Article 4
Section 2
Paragraph 3
3. [No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.] {Altered by 13th Amendment}

Which underscores what the Confederate States believed was granted to them by law as far as Slavery was concerned. I think this was misguided however everyone can interprete this as what they may.

Article 1
Section 9
Paragraph 2
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

9-11 was certainly an invasion by terrorists.
While I've been very outspoken supporting the invasion/liberation of Iraq
I think this is another item that needs to be clarified.

With this said I'm going to bed. I've totally lost myself in the wording of our Constitution and need more time to reflect on it. I've gathered together a group of 10 highly educated scholars to debate this with me. Half that have served this country in the military and half that haven't.

[rsxer45]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
During my research this day of the US Constitution I found a item that clearly shows that the North had no right to force the removal of slavery on the southern states. NOW before anyone gets upset let me make myself perfectly clear. I do not now or have I ever believed any human should be subjected to slavery. I'm simply pointing out a simple statement in our original Constitution that can be taken in different ways. While I truly believe the US is the greatest country on earth we hold principals based on our Constitution and Bill of Rights that might need further defining before we force ourselves on others any further. Naki I think you might understand what I'm trying to convey and could probably assist with your outsiders view which is normally rational. With that said let me continue.

Article 4
Section 2
Paragraph 3
3. [No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.] {Altered by 13th Amendment}

Which underscores what the Confederate States believed was granted to them by law as far as Slavery was concerned. I think this was misguided however everyone can interprete this as what they may.

Article 1
Section 9
Paragraph 2
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

9-11 was certainly an invasion by terrorists.
While I've been very outspoken supporting the invasion/liberation of Iraq
I think this is another item that needs to be clarified.

With this said I'm going to bed. I've totally lost myself in the wording of our Constitution and need more time to reflect on it. I've gathered together a group of 10 highly educated scholars to debate this with me. Half that have served this country in the military and half that haven't.

Im gonna have to disagree. First of all, it isn't at all "clear" by the qoutes that you provided that North had no right to force the removal of slavery in the south. Secondly, the North did not "force" the removal of slavery within the South. There was a long period of bickering and compromise but in no way did the North pass a bill forbiding slavery within all Southern States before the war started. However, after the south seceded, it was considered an illegal and treasonous action by the North which prompted the war and the further legislation banning slavery. By seceding the south gave up all their constitutional rights thereby allowing the Union to pass the emancipation proclomation etc... But, if you notice the EP only banned slavery in the seceded southern states and not in the states that remained in the Union. Only later, through the amendment process granted by the constitution was slavery actually forbidden completely.

Secondly. in regards to Article 4:Section 2 Paragraph 3, as i said above the seceded southern states gave up their rights when they seceded from the Union. Plus, someone could also interpret this section as not applying in this case, becuase it was during wartime and during wartime enemy "property" (which the slaves were considered) could be seized without compensation or their return.

In general though the legality of this issue will never be 100% clear cut to everyone becuause the constitution could be interpretted in so many different ways with differing opinions at both the federal and Supreme Court level. However, to me its seems as if the North was completely within its legal bounds in its action it took against it the seceding states as well as with the following legislation/amendments altering the legality of slavery. And the power to make amendments provides the legality.

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

I'm going to say that somethings where interpreted and written with the use of slavery in mind and that it was probably contradicted somewhere else in the constitution.

[1985_BMW318i]

Well since the Supreme Court has upheld a decision by a lower court that the constitution does not apply to all who are born here, ie American Indians and a few that successfully sued to become "natural born americans" and thus not citizens there is grounds for others now to claim that being "natural born" could remove the guarentees that most prefer. I've been in a debate with a few today over this very question, One is a former Navy Lawyer who attended Harvard. That doesn't make him smarter then the rest of us but he brings a much different veiw point.