I have been reading the editorial page with interest, especially as subjects pertain to getting back to the "original Constitution" and the "intent" of our founding fathers. As was noticed by one contributor, the "Supremacy Clause" gets little note, however, to me, the real "elephant in the room" is slavery.
Twenty-five of the 55 framers of the constitution were slave owners, among them, Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin. Slavery was the engine that built the early economy in this country and without concessions to the southern slave states, there would have been no Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 even put a ban on considering changing or addressing slavery for 20 years.
Bottom line, in order to regress back to the letter and spirit of the "Original Constitution," we would have to embrace slavery again. Is that the real reason behind all this "let's return to what our God-given Constitution intended for us," a veiled attempt to legitimize bigotry and racism?
The "founding fathers," not all of whom embraced or participated in slavery or the slave trade, in order to create a new nation, compromised on an issue with both moral and economic realities, decided the lesser of two evils was to maintain "required labor" (they did not mention the word "slavery") under Article IV Section 2 and kick the can down the road for 20 years.
Bottom line, we cannot ignore slavery with any mention of the "original intent" of our Constitution. Also, ignoring compromise was also a non-starter. I would humbly suggest a little education before taking a position on a subject we seem to have little knowledge of. In my opinion, if "states rights" were intended to be the prime
mover in the development of the Constitution, we would never have had one.
If the "slavers and anti-slavers" acted like our current Congress and Senate, we would not have United States to argue over in the first place.