I assume she’s referring to James Madison (there was no one drafter of the Constn). Madison is the man who insisted the word “slavery” not appear in the Constitution bc he said “it was wrong to admit into the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.” https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1341074002136211457 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
I've written quite critically of Madison on the subject of slavery (I think he deserves much more condemnation than Jefferson on the subject) https://theobjectivestandard.com/2018/04/the-genius-of-james-madison/ … Nevertheless, the answer to her question is still yes. He did intend that.
1 reply 6 retweets 38 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @nhannahjones
Because law is words & the question under discussion is what the Constn says/means. As I say in the article you haven't read, Madison did indeed believe in colonization & as a politician engaged in shameful evasion on slavery policy. That does not change the Const's meaning.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
It's the language itself, as it was understood at the time & in context of the available alternatives.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.