Liberal YouTubers

Rhiannon12866

(216,726 posts) Mon Sep 2, 2024, 11:17 PM Sep 2

Some Republicans Imply Kamala Harris is 3/5th Human? - Thom Hartmann

Some Republicans charged that Kamala Harris is not a “natural born citizen” even citing the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which removed citizenship rights from Black Americans... but going beyond citizenship, these Republicans are suggesting that Kamala Harris and all Black Americans are not even completely human.

The Dred Scott case, infamously recognized Black people as only 3/5th human.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Some Republicans Imply Kamala Harris is 3/5th Human? - Thom Hartmann (Original Post) Rhiannon12866 Sep 2 OP

The 3/5th compromise was in the original constitution. It was not a finding of dred scott unblock Sep 2 #1

This makes me so fucking irate. onecaliberal Sep 2 #2

and, again - - nobody quoted here said ANYTHING to the effect stopdiggin Sep 3 #3

unblock

(53,880 posts)

1. The 3/5th compromise was in the original constitution. It was not a finding of dred scott

Reply to Rhiannon12866 (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2024, 11:27 PM

Sep 2

At least afaik (ianal).

The constitution counted slaves (as 3/5th as much as a white person) for purposes of representation, but slaves couldn't vote, so it effectively gave a boost to white voting power while giving zero voting power to black people.

The dred Scott decision held that black people are property and the federal government can't ban slavery or free slaves in new territories.

onecaliberal

(35,056 posts)

2. This makes me so fucking irate.

Reply to Rhiannon12866 (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2024, 11:57 PM

Sep 2

stopdiggin

(12,384 posts)

3. and, again - - nobody quoted here said ANYTHING to the effect

Reply to Rhiannon12866 (Original post)

Tue Sep 3, 2024, 01:59 AM

Sep 3

that Kamala was either a slave - or 3/5ths human.
And it's kind of a disservice to any kind of legitimate debate - to start out with that sort of completely illegitimate premise.

Reply to this discussion