Black People : Do You Agree Or Disagree That the U. S. Constitution Etc. Applies To Us Too?

Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by chuck, May 22, 2013.

  1. chuck

    chuck Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,528
    I feel and think that we're not going to remake this nation over in our image...

    Some things apply to us as it does to all citizens of this nation...

    FYI...
     
  2. Precise Allah

    Precise Allah Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    662
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Peacemaker
    Location:
    Atlanta Georgia
    Ratings:
    +759
    Peace,

    If you're a citizen of the U.S. then yes it applies to you. Was that the intention of the forefathers of the U.S.? NO. But that really doesn't matter in this day in time because all U.S. citizens are covered regardless. Let's keep it real though, people of color are gonna have to fight more than anyone else to make sure that the constitution will be applied evenly and fairly. White people have demonstrated from the beginning of the U.S. that they can turn a blind eye when they want to.

    Peace
     
  3. legit-writer

    legit-writer Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,538
    Likes Received:
    1,175
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    yeap someone had to fight for the Fourteenth Amendment to be instilled. This Amendment may not be saying much but it says something I guess. (lacks enthusiasm) With that knowledge, the Constitution applies to us, but had to be "amended" in order for it to cover "us" as well, since at one time we wasn't even considered as a whole person.
     
  4. chuck

    chuck Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,528
    Good afternoon, and I'm pleased you chose to reply back, too...

    My and the point: Sometimes I am confused and dumbfounded, i. e., because in spite of all of the usual 'whitey/racism/the system' stuff, I wonder who is for our empowerment, not simply advancing their own...

    I am about my own and that of our relations...

    FYI...
     
  5. chuck

    chuck Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,528
    As I recall: There is also a difference between civil rights and human rights...

    Brother Malcolm urged us to take our case to the U. N., i. e., so our struggles couldn't and wouldn't be subjected to the whims etc. of folk who were against us, from the get go...

    FYI...
     
  6. chuck

    chuck Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,528
    Some backers of the U. S. Revolution were plantation owners etc. Another case study of what the founders of this nation's had to concede to pay off their war debts etc.

    FYI...
     
  7. chuck

    chuck Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,528
    To say the least, since thousands of african descended people fought to make those colonies part of a free nation, the dirty politics which allowed some to continue to enslave others in its midst, was the worst sort of betrayal ad naseum...

    Again I urge you all to read RACISM AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE...

    It will help to answer a lot of your questions...

    FYI...
     
  8. Khem Allah

    Khem Allah Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 29, 2013
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +16
    In the Name of Allah, Our Saviour, Who came in the Person of

    Master Fard Muhammad

    the SUPREME BEING of the Universe to Whom Holy Praises Are Due Forever


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As Salaam Alaikum to my beautiful Black family throughout the hells of white devil America. My prayer is that our Saviour Allah bless each of you and your families with Divine protection and guidance throughout the day. We need Him more than ever today for we are in the belly of a blue-eyed beast.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Salaam Alaikum to all!

    In this post, I shall include the opinion of the American so-called Negro from a powerful Caucasian devil establishment institution of the 19th century - the U.S. Supreme Court. But first, let me say this.

    Recall that for 44 years, our Messenger Elijah Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught us of the reality of the white man as the REAL DEVILS of history and of scripture, and his (Messenger Muhammad's (PBUH)) requirement that the Black man should separate into a land of his own either here or elsewhere. It is intelligent for a man to separate from his enemies and build and do for self and kind independently of the power and influence of said enemies. Waiting like foolish Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for civil rights equality with wicked white devils is sheer insanity. The civilized Black man must unite and work together to build a nation and do for self. That is what civilized men have done throughout history.

    Therefore, Messenger Elijah Muhammad (PBUH) is 10,000 percent correct in his nation-building requirements for our men. It is sad to see 21st century Black men still waiting for unity with wicked Caucasian devils instead of uniting and doing the hard work of building an independent nation for Black people. Usually, you hear spineless jellyfish men cough up a bunch of Caucasian-loving, sissy Negro excuses to justify NOT uniting to build a Black nation. The thought of the hard work of nation-building for our people scares the hell out of traitorous Negro lovers of blue-eyed devil society. They would rather vote and "keep hope alive" in Caucasian lies and false political promises.

    Sure, I've heard all of the cute civil rights fantasy stories from American Black folk who actually believe that they are citizens of devil white America. However, the following opinion from a blue-eyed devil Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court should be a good history lesson and reality check to any foolish optimist of the Black persuasion. Find the online link and study everything that the devils say and believe about Blacks and Africans. Know that the white establishments hate anything Black or of African descent.

    A bucket full of phony civil rights legislations, elected Black political puppets, and so-called constitutional amendments will never change the embedded beliefs, ideals and actions of white devil America and their governing institutions. Their media, law enforcement and judicial systems serve as repeated reminders that the Black descendants of American chattel slavery shall FOREVER be viewed as animals and, shall NEVER be respected as equal humans alongside their former slave-masters.

    It is okay for children to believe in foolishness and fairytales but adults of African descent should know better especially after all the hell we have had to live through in the land of the blue-eyed Caucasian devils.

    WAKE UP Mr. and Mrs. Black Man, and know that the white man is forever your enemy! You are a BIG FOOL if you’ve failed to learn the lessons of history and would prefer to “keep hope alive” and “keep the faith” in the hope of brotherhood and equality with your former slave-masters!

    Here are the excerpts of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion about Africans and Black people. Get your pen, paper and/or notebook and take copious notes! AMERICAN HISTORY CLASS IS IN SESSION!

    =========================================================
    U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney's Opinion on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case - year 1857

    "The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?

    It will be observed that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State in the sense in which the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves.

    It will be observed that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State in the sense in which the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves…

    …The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

    It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted…

    …It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And, for the same reason, it cannot introduce any person or description of persons who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

    The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State, and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

    The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.

    It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

    It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

    In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

    They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

    And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.

    The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies as slave labor was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time.

    The legislation of the different colonies furnishes positive and indisputable proof of this fact.

    …We refer to these historical facts for the purpose of showing the fixed opinions concerning that race upon which the statesmen of that day spoke and acted. It is necessary to do this in order to determine whether the general terms used in the Constitution of the United States as to the rights of man and the rights of the people was intended to include them, or to give to them or their posterity the benefit of any of its provisions.

    The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:

    It begins by declaring that,

    [w]hen in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    It then proceeds to say:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration, for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted, and instead of the sympathy of mankind to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

    Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men -- high in literary acquirements, high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others, and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.

    This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

    The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States -- that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States -- and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen. It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people. It uses them as terms so well understood that no further description or definition was necessary…

    …No one of that race had ever migrated to the United States voluntarily; all of them had been brought here as articles of merchandise. The number that had been emancipated at that time were but few in comparison with those held in slavery, and they were identified in the public mind with the race to which they belonged, and regarded as a part of the slave population rather than the free. It is obvious that they were not even in the minds of the framers of the Constitution when they were conferring special rights and privileges upon the citizens of a State in every other part of the Union.

    Indeed, when we look to the condition of this race in the several States at the time, it is impossible to believe that these rights and privileges were intended to be extended to them."

    -Excerpt of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney's Opinion on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case - year 1857
    Document Source: Cornell University Legal Information Institute
    TANEY, C.J., Opinion of the Court
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    Scott v. Sandford () 100 U.S. 1
    =========================================================

    Salaam!
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Remember folks, SEPARATION from the white devil system is the only solution.

    The Restrictive Law as taught by the Messenger is our success! And, as long as we are living strictly in accordance with his teachings, we, the Black Nation, will be successful.

    As Salaam Alaikum to the TRUE believers in Allah's Holy Messenger Elijah Muhammad (PBUH). It is always an honor to interact with you.
     
  9. chuck

    chuck Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    13,482
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,528
    I ask you to start your own thread and not do any more preaching on mine...

    Thanks!
     
Loading...