Huh... That Really #CorrectedMyRecord

...

Does it actually say you can own people in the u.s. Constitution?

Nope. In the very first sentence he conflates what's written in the Constitution with what the Founding Fathers said. Ironic considering the leftists refuse to do this when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and Federalist Papers.

No. It does not.
It does, however, say that all men are created equal.

The constitution left out definitions for free men. It wasn't allowed, it just wasn't obstructed.

Also, why do negros always complain about slavery? Do Indians bitch & moan about the same slave trade that put them in shackles? No.

Nope, how sad one of the Anglo cucks we kicked out know our countries laws better than the blacks!

Truly our education system has failed!

Of course not.

No. OP is a fucktard.

Some fathers that came later also amended the constitution to make niggers first class people, but I don't see him complaining about that.

>niggers
>people

This.
Following science and real world attempts, it's clear this was a failed idea.

Checked for truth.

That's the declaration nigger.

No, but at one point it did say niggers counted as 3/5ths of a person

Was the 3/5ths rule actually in the constitution itself? I doubt it.

Article 1, Section 2

It was added as an amendment by conservatives to fuck with slave owners if I remember

Actually the constitution doesn't say you can own people. The 13th Amendment proclaims slavery illegal. What a fucking retard.

>These faggots are allowed to breathe air in the U.S.

Holy fuck are you faggots stupid


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 the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 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.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3
>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

And the only reason why they didn't use the exact term "Slave" or "property" is because Madison got butthurt about slavery and wanted to leave an out later on.

It was written in as a compromise by abolitionists so that slave owners didn't have 1 vote per slave. The intention was to limit the political clout of slave owners.

So yeah, mr black fake news man is an anti freedom shill.

Holy fuck you guys. Are you the Trumpfags that got brought in recently by this Trump bullshit? Sup Forums wasn't THIS retarded before Trump. At least Holocaust deniers had some semblance of ambiguity. The constitution still fucking exists in whole form in fucking D.C. You can look at it with your own two eyes.

>And the only reason why they didn't use the exact term "Slave" or "property" is because Madison got butthurt about slavery and wanted to leave an out later on.
So it doesn't actually say that you can own people then you dumbfuck. You liberals make me think you've said the dumbest shit ever yet you astound me again and again.

When you Import people and get taxed for it, it does seem to imply ownership, doesn't it

Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 again.

>The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

That means can't ban slavery until at least 1808. Which means that Slavery was a constitutionally protected practice.

No, the Constitution doesn't say everyone is equal, that's the Declaration of Independence.

No, it was a part of the Great Compromise of 1787. This compromise allowed for the ratification of the US Constitution as the formula for US federal government. One part of this comrpomise was the 3/5 Compromise, which states that for voting purposes slaves (I don't believe race was ever mentioned) counted as 3/5 a person. This was needed to get the southern states to accept the constitution. It was in the constitution, but no longer applies as amendments have since removed it. So, no, it isn't in there now.

Hey dipshit, slavery isn't allowed in the constitution. The 13th amendment made it illegal and wrote over any passages that were interpreted as condoning it.

>when you import people and get taxed for it
I dunno, isn't your country literally importing people and taxing the citizens for it? Pot calling the kettle a nigger on this one franz

If anything it shows racist old grandpa was right.
Time to re-inslave the niggers and quickly make them our number one export. Then we wont have a reason to have slavery anymore.

I'd love to own some slaves. They should bring it back.

The 13th amendment took almost 100 years and a civil war to make happen. The point the fine melanined gentleman was trying to make was that the original constitution and bill of rights were flawed in some ways, and we shouldn't hold them to be perfect documents because they were old or written by the founding father.

It's not a hard argument, nor a very good argument, but the fact that some faggots on Sup Forums need to deny history to argue about it is fucking pathetic. I'm no lefty, the opposite in fact. But that doesn't mean I need to tolerate some fuckheads who know shit about the constitution. It makes the rest of us look bad.

Irrelevant. The 13th amendment overwrote anything allowing slavery by explicitly outlawing it. It's almost like there is a specific way to change the constitution instead of just ignoring the parts you don't like.

>HAHAHAHA RIGHT FELLAS? YOU ALL KNOW WHAT I'M SAYIN
No

dialga would kick palkias ass

guns are for self-defense and hunting

we're not all pussy liberals

you don't have the votes

who is this dumb spook?

Dialga's a turd in legendary form, meanwhile Palkia is useful.
>roar of time is literally just a dragon-type hyper beam

It never even mentions slaves. Not a single word on it.

go ahead, filthy negro, vote for the abolition of the fucking constitution and seal your lasting friendship with the next tree

if Big D and Little P showed off I would guarantee Roar of Time would 1 hit ko, seeing as theres no way special rend on its own could take down dialga

Then why don't liberals call for a convention to amend the constitution?

U dum boi

or the chinese or the irish?

Not a word you said worked against the true statement that the Constitution does not say slavery is allowed.

Where is slavery explicitly protected under the Constitution?

Either 'Che' is making shit up, or he's committing the genetic fallacy by suggesting that because the second amendment derived from people who practiced slavery that any of their contributions should be suspect or disregarded. On that basis I'm sure 'Che' has done something to discredit himself. I will apply his same standard to himself and suspect or disregard his statements.

The 13th amendment took all of recorded history to happen. Sorry.

>quote says "forefathers said"
>whole thread is retards arguing about "constitution said"
>even if it was "constitution said" any child would understand the meaning of the sentence
>Sup Forums literally retarded as usual
>why am I even posting

> American education