You have a very simplistic and naive notion of cultural relativity in regards to civil rights. Do you have any idea how completely unfeasible your idea is? Expanding rights to those groups would have caused massive social instability and doomed the United States to failure before the ink on the Constitution even dried. Just read about how the country was almost ripped apart when public schools were integrated in the 1950s and 60s. You think a newly formed nation that had just finished fighting a war against the most powerful country on the planet was ready for this type of social progress? You are clearly not thinking at all.

2

4/20/2012 8:57:10 AM

I never claimed that adopting culture-independent civil rights would be a trivial or non-destructive process for a society that entrenched in bigoted policy. This is quite a windmill you're tilting at.

Yes, the constitution was positively metropolitan for its time. It was still flawed (and continues to be flawed to at least some degree).

4/20/2012 9:28:56 AM

Quote :

"It allowed white men to restrict the rights of black people and women. It doesn't have to explicitly say "fuck black people and women" to be racist or sexist. A law that says "men get more money that women" is sexist. Why the fuck am I even talking to you?"

I'll post it again:

Quote :

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

-Lysander Spooner.

The problem was not that the Constitution was inherently racist or sexist. The lawmakers were racist and sexist. You could have the best Constitution in the world, but if the people running the government are morally flawed, the laws are going to suck.

4/20/2012 10:19:58 AM

Good point and conceded. I retract calling the document racist or sexist but not calling it flawed.

4/20/2012 10:35:43 AM

Concur.

4/20/2012 4:04:48 PM