3/5ths Compromise and a conservative view

Today, I had one of the most interesting conversation with one of my classmates in my American Legal Systems class. He is very conservative. I mean VERY conservative. He believes that the constitution was written in such a way that each of the framers, some slaveholding, and very pious, believed that in 100 years, full rights would be exercised to everyone. He believes that Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright have put pressure on African Americans to always vote Democratic. I understood that as a hardcore conservative, that he would make these sort of points. One that got me today was the 3/5ths compromise.

His belief system was this. HE believed that abolitionists and anti-slavery advocates drummed up the three-fifths compromise to encourage slave rights, which would lead to black suffrage. It was amazing how he tried to convince everyone that what most learned since 2nd Grade Social Studies was the other way. Here is the facts.

Annotation:
The Constitution was a document based upon compromise: between larger and smaller states, between proponents of a strong central government and those who favored strong state governments, and, above all, between northern and southern states. Of all the compromises on which the Constitution rested, perhaps the most controversial was the Three-Fifths Compromise, an agreement to count three-fifths of a state's slaves in apportioning Representatives, Presidential electors, and direct taxes.
The three-fifths figure was the outgrowth of a debate that had taken place within the Continental Congress in 1783. The Articles of Confederation had apportioned taxes not according to population but according to land values. The states consistently undervalued their land in order to reduce their tax burden. To rectify this situation, a special committee recommended apportioning taxes by population. The Continental Congress debated the ratio of slaves to free persons at great length. Northerners favored a 4-to-3 ratio, while southerners favored a 2-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio. Finally, James Madison suggested a compromise: a 5-to-3 ratio. All but two states--New Hampshire and Rhode Island--approved this recommendation. But because the Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement, the proposal was defeated. When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, it adopted Madison's earlier suggestion.
The taxes that the Three-Fifths Compromise dealt with were "direct" taxes, as opposed to excise or import taxes. It was not until 1798 that Congress imposed the first genuine direct taxes in American history: a tax on dwelling-houses and a tax on slaves aged 12 to 50.
The Three-Fifths Compromise greatly augmented southern political power. In the Continental Congress, where each state had an equal vote, there were only five states in which slavery was a major institution. Thus the southern states had about 38 percent of the seats in the Continental Congress. Because of the 1787 Three-Fifths Compromise, the southern states had nearly 45 percent of the seats in the first U.S. Congress, which took office in 1790.
It is ironic that it was a liberal northern delegate, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, as a way to gain southern support for a new framework of government. Southern states had wanted representation apportioned by population; after the Virginia Plan was rejected, the Three-Fifths Compromise seemed to guarantee that the South would be strongly represented in the House of Representatives and would have disproportionate power in electing Presidents.
Over the long term, the Three-Fifths Compromise did not work as the South anticipated. Since the northern states grew more rapidly than the South, by 1820, southern representation in the House had fallen to 42 percent. Nevertheless, from Jefferson's election as President in 1800 to the 1850s, the three-fifths rule would help to elect slaveholding Presidents. Southern political power increasingly depended on the Senate, the President, and the admission of new slaveholding states.

It was about power. It was by no means necessary about slave rights or suffrage. No. In 1787, there were hardly many metropolitan areas as was in the North. The North was the industrial hub of the nation where manufacturing was king. There were hardly any fertile land for crops to be grown, so it became a place of industry and slavery was limited or not needed. In the South, however, agricultural, sparse land was only there. The population was not dense at all. It was spread out and land was sparingly used. With a small population, means that there are less electoral votes, less representation in the U.S. Congress, thus less political power in the south, where the North could forcefully impose anything they wanted on the South. Thus, slaves were counted as 3/5ths. There were loads of slaves in the South and could be used to bolster power in the South.

Thats the facts. I don't know where he came up with that, but I'd like to see it.

I'm not prejudiced, but I'm calling you a nigger thief.

Its amazing isn't it. You know, I always hear that the northern states don't have any racism from people who lived there, yet it seems you can find it if you look hard enough. Now, don't get me wrong, I live in Georgia. I know when someone humbly missteps or says a bigoted statement. Everyone has made at least one bigoted statement in their lives, including me. When I do it, and I see an uncomfortable person or a person who gets angry, I try to understand to apologize and tell the person I didn't know what exactly I said that was offensive, he or she tells me, and I make sure not to say it again. I try to do the same thing.  I also know when someone is outwardly and outright racist. Case in point.





Now, this cockney shrew, and I mean that with the utmost respect, did this to a guy that was only trying to do his job. Unfortunately, he was fired for it. Its not as if he struck her back after he struck him. Still, it doesn't look good in this day and age that someone who does their job to the best of their ability should not be fired for that.

This happened in the state of Massachusetts. The state that has the now re-elected black governor, Deval Patrick. The state that overwhelmingly voted for then Sen. Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. I just wanted to show this to confirm to many that just because their political affiliation may be Democratic or liberal doesn't mean that racism doesn't permeate their supporters. Likewise that Republicans or conservatives have racists permeate throughout. On both sides, I hope to see that each side expels these views away. From what I have seen the last two weeks, I'm not too hopeful.

You know the feeling you get after being hit upside the head with a baseball bat?

Yeah, thats the Democrats today.

I gotta say, I'm in great deathly pain. Our state has just elected a man who might get federally indicted a month after the inauguration.

Ok, here's my assessment. Its the economy, stupid. And with 9.6% unemployment, people are not happy. In spite of all of the things the President and the Congress has done, each of them good, it does not stop the pain of the economic hurt in the nation. This, coupled with a majority of the 62 Million Americans who did not vote for President Obama in 2008, led the charge for the Republican Party to take the U.S. House and damn near the U.S. Senate and elected the first Orange American to be the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. It was also a media problem. Its hell to solve it and with the media ad buys, its a wonder they even know the President. The biggest fault that President Obama and the White House did was to stop doing press conferences and primetime news interviews. When he did those, everybody was attentive and saw his viewpoint. He needs to start doing those again, especially with Republicans in charge in the House. Two, and this is a problem with the Democrats, FOLLOW THE FRIGGIN LEADER!!!!! 39 House Blue Dogs voted against healthcare reform. 12 of them are left. Trying to become Republicans didn't help them much. Of course, neither did it help many candidates with (D) behind their name. If you run from positions the President advocates, it doesn't make the position very popular and voters will not reward you for standing up.



(Have Mercy.)

As you can understand, Republicans across the nation are gleeful and they should be. They won the friggin U.S. House with a margin larger than there was in World War Two.
They have been having these every hour on the hour for the past 24 hours. And theirs were real.


But make no mistake. Republicans are still lowly regarded than Democrats on favor ability and according to polls, people expect to be disappointed by your actions. So, though you won, your party still has something to prove. Just as well, we have to wonder about the Republican leadership and the tea party candidates that won. The ones that most of you didn't back.

You can also understand the Democrats.............




Democrats, liberal and conservative, setting up a primary challenge against Barack Obama in 2012 is a bad idea. It didn't work in 1968, nor 2000, nor 1980, so no, it will not make him more liberal/centrist. It will make him lose.  And who you are planning to challenge him with. For the conservative Dems, Evan Bayh!!?? Fuck no. There is a reason he isn't vice president and the shit he pulled in Indiana shows it. For the liberals, Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold, and Howard Dean have all one thing in common. THEY LOST!!!!!!!!!!! Running him against losers in a year where we might be seeing something totally different is not only stupid, but further leads to Democrats as a whole not taking you seriously. Hell, if the GOP is engineering polls saying its likely a primary challenge will happen, it should give you pause. Take a breath. Lay down. Get your spouse, partner, boy/girl/hookup and get some angry sex going with them. Hell, most of you had victory sex after the President won, have some angry ones now.

Its surprising how after the election, it proves both liberals and conservatives were correct at least to liberals and conservatives.
All in all, we will get through it. Its American politics. It'll be hard as all frig and frack hell, but that we will get through it.


UPDATE: IT BEGINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Its gonna be fun. Stay tuned.

MY GOD, OBAMA IS RACIST TOWARD REPUBLICANS!!!

Oh my, oh great balls of fire. You know, today on Fox News, I learned something about Obama today. He is..........yup you guessed it, a racist.

Against whom you might ask.........just guess.

REPUBLICANS!!!!!! Ahh, the horror.

How dare this man, who gave this speech in Philadelphia in 2008




Who told all of us to rise above and come into better times. How dare he racebait Republicans. How DARE HE!!!!

And just what did he say........

SEE WHAT HE SAID!!!!!



Somebody call the National Urban League and Al Sharpton. How DARE HE!!!!!! Republicans ran the car in ditch. Democrats got the car out. Now the Democrats drive and want Republicans in the back seat. RACIST!!!!!!!!

I mean, look, Patriotic beloved Fox News believes in racial equality for Republicans. Look at them talking about the travesty today.



Gee, I'm glad Fox News gave President Obama a lesson on racial politics. Fox News understands that fully.





(That video above encompasses what I was doing while I typed this.)

Ok, a couple of things. Really Fox, you heard car and got BUS!? No mention of a bus was made. He said car, meaning a coupe or four door sedan. Not a big ass MARTA. In the Jim Crow era, black people had to ride in the back of the BUS!" Many people of color rode in the back of cars. Really Fox, you couldn't ask Juan Williams for Eyes on the Prize? He has a boxed DVD set you could run on Fox to educate the viewers.I am not of the Fox mindset, so I guess I just didn't know that car and bus were interchangeable. I guess its like giving a five year old kid a playboy instead of Go Dog Go. Its close enough, its got words in it, plus it can also teach your child about anatomy. Then, its racist because he is saying that Republicans have to get in the back seat. Of the "car"(Which is not a bus.) Now, note I said Republicans. Republicans. No skin color or ethnic background, just Republicans. Now, in order for it to even come close to being racist, would be to believe that President Obama believes that all Republicans are of one race. Right Fox? I mean, yeah theres George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but Marco Rubio, Michael Steele, General Colin Powell. All are Republicans, so I guess their all racially in the same group,right Fox?

The real question should be, why is Fox insinuating that all Republicans are all one race?

Hell, I thought the President was nice, letting Republicans ride in the car. I would have had them push.

Why I don't listen to Mark Halperin when it comes to President Obama.

Mark, Mark, Mark. Still trying to make sense in the political world, I see. You would think that after the political general election of 2008, he would temper his beltway crystal ball about what will happen and why stuff happens the way it does. Every time I see this prognosticator on news media and cable shows, it always hearkens back to when he said this.



and then this shoddy display after the last Presidential Debate in October of 2008.



So whenever I see Mark Halperin, I think the same thing I think when I see Luke Russert and when I use to see George W. Bush, "There because his daddy was important enough, but doesn't know what the f*&$ to do." So, when I read his latest screed, it caused my eyes to roll so far into my head, I actually saw my temporal lobe.

With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle.

Ok, one thing I don't get is how its good to be an elite again. Being elite is not a vice, but a virtue now. Two years ago, when then Democratic Nominee Sen. Barack Obama was running for office, it was that he was elitist, and that elites don't know jack shit about the political scene. Now it seems the President is not in the elite club anymore and since he isn't, its ok to be elite. And since Marky here believes hes part of the club, that Two, they all believe this guy is in over his head still, even when he proved them wrong by getting elected overwhelmingly without vote recounts or the Supreme Court in 2008. That he is insular, arrogant and clueless with getting along with Congress (which conservative members of the Democratic Party tie his hands with no fear of retribution and the Republicans who want his presidency to come out worse so that George Bush looks good by comparison, though got financial reform and health care reform through), the Media (who all want dog and pony shows with the guy, remember Jeremiah Wright said it=Barack Obama said it.), the Business Community( Who are all about making money and anyone that makes it much more difficult for them to with financial regulations must be destroyed.) and working class voters (majority white who didn't vote for him anyway.) But thats not all in the screed here.

On Friday, after the release of the latest bleak unemployment data - the last major jobs figures before the midterms - Obama said, "Putting the American people back to work, expanding opportunity, rebuilding the economic security of the middle class is the moral and national challenge of our time." But elites feel the President has failed to meet that challenge and are convinced he will be unable to do so in the remainder of his term. Moreover, there is a growing perception that Obama's decisions are causing harm - that businesses are being hurt by the Administration's legislation and that economic recovery is stalling because of the uncertainty surrounding energy policy, health care, deficits, housing, immigration and spending.

Ok, the uncertainty thing I have been hearing over and over. Its something that has never made any sense to me. Business is all about uncertainty. If you have an invention and you have to put a down payment on it for about $20,000 to get the patents, manufacturing cost, etc., your uncertain about whether it would breed results. You don't know if your opportunity cost would be for naught or would be paid back in full plus. We were in tough times before where we were uncertain about where our country was headed, but we got through it with the ingenuity of the American people, including its business set.

What gets me about this article is that it seems to lay everything on President Obama without factoring in the partisanship of the GOP, hellbent on winning after two staggering election losses, the unemployment which has no quick fix, and most of all historical context.

I had a discussion with someone about historical context and how we judge other presidencies alongside the current one. Its a reason why that stale cardboard Sen. Orrin Hatch can say with a straight face today how much he "loves" President Bill Clinton, even though he was one of the senators who voted for impeaching him.
Its why this Ronald Reagan Fellatio Contest happens with Republicans, omitting all the stuff he did in the White House and how they wanted him not to run for re-election in 1984, in which he took 49 states.


Moral here, don't listen to Halperin, and you'll be all the wiser.

"Thou doth protest too much??"

Ok, this week, I really had nothing to say on the political side of things. Only that polls are tightening in Congressional races and that the ascendancy of a Speaker Oompa Loompa may be premature. Who knows he could get it, then again, he might get challenged by the more conservative faction of the Republican Party for the Speaker's chair. So who knows what will happen. But, speaking of the Republican Party, lets look at the state of Michigan. In the state of Michigan, they have assistants to the offices of many state offices. Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Secretary of State and assistant Secretary of State. Where our excursion follows us today is to the office of the Attorney General. Like the other offices, assistant Attorneys General are there to help out in case the elected Attorney General is incapacitated. They are also there to "assist" the Attorney General in any need pertaining to the office. However, I never thought their functions were to do this to an SGA President of a college.

Take a look.



Okay. Lets recap, Assistant Attorney General of the state, get it THE STATE of Michigan, Andrew Shirvell, targeting an SGA President. SGA President, who is not a state employee, but basically an employee of the school. Who was elected not by Michigan, but the student body of the University of Michigan. Saying that he was funded by outside gay groups to run, (I never thought running for SGA President was the equivalent of running for the White House.) Ok, lets take the gay thing out for a minute. A grown ass man, is stalking a college student. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW ISN'T THIS GUY NOT FIRED OR COMMITTED!!!!!!!! If I were that SGA President Chris Armstrong,a restraining order may be needed.

"He's pushing a RADICAL AGENDA!!!!!!" Duh. Its college. At least 60% of us could be considered radical. We don't all give a crap about gay marriage or gays in the military. Some want all military bases around the world closed. Hell, the male freshman population would love to have "Free Condom and Topless College Women day." I mean, my God, this guy talks about tuition rates and extending cafeteria hours. On the coed living together part, some do already. I mean, there over the age of 18. Yeah, they designate an apartment for women while men have one next door, but its so lax that it ends up happening. I'll never forget my sophomore year when every morning, I'd see one of my roommates girlfriends cooking breakfast.(P.S. she made good pancakes.)

Where did they get this guy from?

Where did they find this guy.

Question to the Media: Why does the President have to "relate to me?"

Ok, today watched the CNBC Town Hall thing today. President Obama, as usual, gives substantial answers to the questions that the press deems "too long". Hey, if it isn't a soundbite like "Bring it on!" was, well to hell with covering it. What I was surprised at though was the sort of "post-game analysis in which they review the highlights, so to speak. In this exchange here, I found it ridiculous.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ok, lets see. He relates to me because he was broke before. He's black like me. He's white, and somewhere in me, I have a drop of white (thank you slavery and especially my Great-Grandfather on my maternal grandmother's side and maybe my paternal grandmother's as well.) Here's the thing, I don't want President Obama to go around, grasping ahold of people saying ," I feel your pain." Hell, I remember reports of the media ridiculing President Clinton for doing that. Now, suddenly its in vogue now? What the hell. Listen, the President has a lot of shit I don't have. One, a huge 132 room house leased to him for four years with an optional renewal by the landlords for another four, along with a fleet of Cadillac's, Yukon's, airplanes and helicopters. He has bodyguards, maid service, home office, $400,000 a year plus $50,000 Expense account. Was loaded beforehand due to him and the First Lady's lucrative jobs. Has two kids in private school and is probably the most famous man on the planet. If he ever says," I feel your pain." to me, I would probably say the same thing that Louise Jefferson said to George.

Hell, even if you are a defeated former president, you make out well. Look at President Jimmy Carter, defeated in 1980 in a landslide and has been living the high life since.

The whole interview, with shots of where he lives.

Damn, I would switch with Jimmy Carter in a heartbeat. He is doing pretty well for himself. No way in hell do these guys feel my pain. They may be empathetic to my pain. Sympathetic to it. They may have known the pain before, and cringe at the thought.  President Carter with his wife Rosalynn might help me build a house, but they don't feel my pain. Look, I elected a President not to feel my pain, but put in policies that benefit me as well as people around me so I can staunch the bleeding, put an ice pack on the pain, and make it heal. (Long ass metaphor, almost forgot what the hell I was talking about.) Its nice to "feel my pain", but then you tell me the solutions to how to stop the pain. Its how it works, and I respect politicians more when they do that then trying to get me to believe that a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who had a father who was a CIA chief, RNC chair, U.S.Congressman, Oilman, heir, Vice President, and President would, "have a beer with me."  To me, thats just like the time Governor Mitt Romney quoted Baha Men lyrics.



(LIKE SERIOUSLY MITT? Are you going to sing Flavor Flav's greatest hits in 2012 to try to blight President Obama's approval? How about Freddie Jackson or Moms Mabley's comedy stylings. I swear, I think he thought with this strategy that he would end up with 20% of the black vote.)

Media, I don't care if my President doesn't feel my pain, I just want him to fix the problem. I wish you would fix your problem and just report instead of analyze.