The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (HD) 

The United States is not a democracy. Democracy is one of the worst forms of government.

Originally intent is really difficult to establish though, given that there was ferocious debate among the founders on almost all components of the constitution and its following amendments. Conflicting visions and continuous debates define is what the founders intended and is what ought to be continued. Among all the rulings up until the late 20th century, only once was originalism explicitly applied and it was not a pretty one. It was Taney in Dred Scott. Of course, if originalism means a limited view on government powers per Madison and others, I totally respect your opinion. But founders did not have a uniform vision for the country and like people today, they disagreed on many things. It would be illogical and absurd to say that it would be possible that a large group of people had agreed on everything about rights and government powers. Here's Lincoln: “Now and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience-to reject all progress-all improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case we should do so upon evidence so conclusive and argument so clear that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand”

Was the "original" intent to maintain slavery? Are we bound by that intent? Was the "original " intent to exclude white women the same rights as white men? Are Christians bound by the "original " intent of those he wrote God's "original" chosen people. The "orginal" intent was the Articles of Confedaration. The "original" intent of the second convention was to modify the Ariticles of the Confedaration . NOT to abolish it and write a new Constitution.

I would also add that different people had different intents. 😉😏

The problem with "original intent" is that it's based on the false premise that the constitution, itself, was not a product of politics (i.e. compromise) as a opposed to some kind of shared ideal. I mean simply reading about the history of the federalists vs anti-federalists and all the political chicanery that was used, just to create the constitution and the bill of rights it's apparent that it's a document of compromises.

Obviously, you were not paying attention! He indicated that there may be a ton of rights granted even if they initially began with just those that were 180 degrees from what rights the chattel slaves did not have and he began to run down a list of them that someone had previously compiled that was not all-inclusive! Why are you putting out mis-information?!?

I think your Dr. Livingston is trying much to hard to ignore the central role that slaveholding rights played in the secessionist position as stated in the Confederate Constitution : “In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

More misinformation!

Not going backwards.

You're right when you say , " Anyone who knows what a 14th Amendment citizen is shouldn't want to be one. ", because , contrary to describing the people's rights the Federal Gov't shall not infringe upon in the Original Constitution of 1787 , The 13th amendment states that no State shall make any law that will abridge the "privileges " or " immunities " of these newly defined United States " citizens" . Subsequent to that Eric Foner is asked , " What are these privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States ? " . Foner's answer . " Nobody knows .". Citizens of a specific political state or entity are granted " privileges " as subjects of that entity . That is a far cry from the "people " in the original Constitution having unalienable ,God given rights that the Federal Congress shall not infringe upon. State privileges can be taken away by the entity that granted them . God given human rights cannot and are unalienable . All " law" abiding people of any race sex or creed or persuasion have unalienable rights and the 13th Amendment should be rewritten to reflect that .