re: #375 goddamnedfrank

Josh says that the Constitution protects race, except it explicitly only mentions race in the context of the right to vote, nothing else. When pushed he admits he thinks that there was no Constitutional basis for Loving, but insists rather illogically that it’s that or nothing.

Somehow we’re supposed to magically divine the intent of the old, dead, straight white male legislators who authored the 14th Amendment, and use that imaginary supposition to override and completely ignore the plain language bit they actually wrote about “any person.” Because being a “textualist” apparently means ignoring the actual text whenever it’s ideologically convenient.

Oh, I’ve seen that line of argument - that the Constitution doesn’t allow Slavery, and if you think it does, you’re mistaken. My response was, “Then why did we need to amend the Constitution to outlaw Slavery?”

But beyond that, how is it that the people who WROTE the goddam thing, and who owned slaves - and continued owning them after ratification - wrote something which did not permit slavery? In what universe does that make any damned sense?