Reply #1: Not speaking for her of coarse.

[RandomThoughts]

But I think I remember from school, that part of the Constitution was to allow it to change and grow also as society changed.

So you could say that the ideas of the Constitution, should be separate from that actual implementation within the framework of some period of time.

So some specific law that was not achievable then, would not be a reflection of the constitution, unless that same social or cultural thought on that topic exist today.

The idea of popular consent of the governed made slavery not be able to be addressed until enough people would stand against it many years later.

In that context the Constitution is not a set of rules, but a set of rules created to maintain the dual concepts of rights of the majority, and protection of minorities by checks and balances, and the ideas of how to do that with as many safeguards against consolidations of power as possible.


So the Constitution can be thought of as a document to promote ideas, separate from those ideas when they include a cultural context of that time.

Slavery in the Constitution was an affirmation of the right of the governed to make decisions, within the framework, even if wrong at the time, of what most people thought were the governed.


Although he makes a good point that the idea that someone said to be owned as property, counting as a vote is a gross error and not only obviously wrong, but also hypocritical. It is actually like those that say property should give more votes, since that was there frame of mind then, where some people were thought of as property. So not only did they say slaves were not people, but they said they were people, so they had to say they were partial people to get the vote count, and not let them vote or be free.

The mental frame of mind to rationalize the hypocrisy makes sense, even if wrong.

Note that some HR departments still think that way, although not about race, but about any person.