Uh, slavery was allowed. Slaves were considered 3/5 of a human being. And women could not vote. Yes, the Constitution DOES change over time!
Sahil Kapur @sahilkapur
13 Oct 2020
Replying to @sahilkapur
Amy Coney Barrett on originalism: "That means that I interpret the Constitution as a law... I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. That meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my policy views into it."

Oct 15, 2020 · 3:07 AM UTC

330
686
75
3,474
Load newest
Replying to @marwilliamson
The Constitution didn't "consider" slaves to be "3/5 of a human being". The Constitution said that slaves should be counted as 3/5ths for the purpose of representation, which lowered the power of slave states. The slave states wanted to count all their slaves fully.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Someone tell her the constitution is a living document
Replying to @marwilliamson
Love your work @marwilliamson but I don’t like these solely political attacks on this nominee “As people ratified “ literally means at the time it was signed. So her statement was accurate. She may or not be qualified. But that statement is not disqualifying
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
Uhh, its called Constitutional amendments. Stop being so partisan that you can't see reality.
4
Replying to @marwilliamson
Those things were fixed by amending the Constitution, though.
1
1
37
Replying to @marwilliamson @curiousofmind
and native americans were referred to as 'savages'. we cannot live a 1787 document in 2020.
5
Replying to @marwilliamson @rachael64185734
Constitution does change over time by amendment, ratification. However, the meaning of the original amendments, text & Bill of Rights does not change. Religion is still freely practiced & that is robustly defended. The Press is still free, notwithstanding its partisan tendencies.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Yes. With amendments. Being an originalist includes amendments. Because the legislative branch is supposed to make laws, not the judicial branch. Their job is *supposed* to be keeping the gov’t in check, and they have failed spectacularly at that over time.
3
73
Replying to @marwilliamson
You’re parroting that 3/5 phrase. It was actually a genius move by the Union and a numbers game to weaken the South. And you were running for President? See this is the problem; info being disseminated to large groups that isn’t factual. #MinisterJu @RealUrbanGuru
1
1
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
She wouldn’t even be a judge!
1
Load more