GOVT 201 Wk 4 DISCUSSION

docx

School

Regent University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

201

Subject

Political Science

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by JusticeStarLark36

This is a graded discussion: 100 points possible due Nov 19 Unit 4 Discussion(Group) 15 15 unread replies. 38 38 replies. Respond to one the following questions: 1. Do you think that children of illegal immigrants born in United States territory ought to be citizens of the United States? Does the 14th Amendment support this idea? Argue in favor of your position by citing evidence. 2. Do you think that the United States Constitution is a flawed document because of slavery? 3. Do you think that it is possible to have a unified American polity in light of the fact that it is so large and diverse? Your response(s) should comply with the formatting, content, and word count guidelines, along with the style manual requirements, indicated in the syllabus. Review the grading rubric provided for this discussion forum to ensure the best outcomes for your dialogue assignment. Search entries or author Filter replies by unread Unread Collapse replies Expand replies Subscribed Reply Reply to Unit 4 Discussion(Group) ° Collapse Subdiscussion ° Joshua Anicete ° Joshua Anicete ° Nov 14, 2023 ° Nov 14 at 8:08pm

° Manage Discussion Entry ° Do you think that the United States Constitution is a flawed document because of slavery? The question of whether the United States Constitution is flawed due to its accommodation of slavery is a complex and nuanced issue. While it is undeniable that the Constitution, particularly in its original form, contained provisions that implicitly endorsed and protected the institution of slavery, it is essential to contextualize this within the historical realities of the time. The framers of the Constitution faced the challenge of establishing a national government to unite the thirteen disparate colonies, each with its own economic, social, and political interests. The inclusion of compromises like the Three-Fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause reflected the delicate balance the framers sought to maintain between slaveholding and non- slaveholding states. Critics argue that these compromises stain the document's integrity and question its commitment to equality and liberty. However, defenders contend that the framers made pragmatic concessions to prevent the collapse of the fragile union, believing that the Constitution provided a framework for future generations to address and rectify its shortcomings. While the Constitution indeed facilitated the continuation of slavery, it also established a framework for amendments, a mechanism that enabled subsequent generations to abolish slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment. Therefore, viewing the Constitution as a static document solely defined by its historical flaws oversimplifies its role as a living document that can adapt to changing societal norms. Overall, labeling the Constitution as inherently flawed due to its historical compromises on slavery requires a careful examination of the document's overall impact, its capacity for amendment, and the historical context in which it was crafted. While acknowledging its imperfections, one must recognize its adaptability and the subsequent amendments that have moved the nation closer to fulfilling its ideals of equality and justice for all. Reply ° Reply to Comment ° Collapse Subdiscussion ° Charity Kewish ° Charity Kewish ° Nov 18, 2023 ° Nov 18 at 9:29am ° Manage Discussion Entry ° Joshua, The Three Fifths Compromise was a great act of Congress, but it is too often misunderstood. Let me explain. The Southern Congressional Delegation wanted to count blacks in their population count so that the

South would gain congressional seats. BUT, they did not want to let blacks vote. This would enable the South to gain control of congress and keep slavery legal. The other congressmen knew this tactic and were not going to let this happen. This is like taxation without representation. They knew it was not fair. So the compromise of three fifths was to keep the population count low enough so the Southern delegation would not be empowered to keep slavery legal. And to be honest, Southern Republicans were against slavery and Northern Democrats were for slavery. So the war over slavery was really not North vs. South, it was Republican vs. Democrat. There were more Democrats in the south and more Republicans in the North. The Northern states had black congressmen and state leaders for 100 years while blacks in the South were still slaves. Did you know this? Professor Kewish Reply ° Reply to Comment ° Collapse Subdiscussion ° Akosua Abankwa ° Akosua Abankwa ° Nov 18, 2023 ° Nov 18 at 2:47pm ° Manage Discussion Entry ° Hi Joshua, The discussion around the US Constitution's handling of slavery is intricate. Acknowledging its implicit support for slavery initially, it's vital to grasp the complexities of its drafting. The framers aimed to unify diverse colonies, leading to compromises like the Three-Fifths and Fugitive Slave Clauses. Critics see these as stains on its integrity, while defenders view them as pragmatic measures to maintain the fragile union. Although these compromises perpetuated slavery, the Constitution's adaptable nature allowed for amendments, culminating in the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery. It's crucial to perceive the Constitution not merely as a relic of its time but as a dynamic framework, capable of evolving to align with evolving societal values. Understanding its flaws while appreciating its adaptability is key in assessing its role in advancing equality and justice. Reply ° Reply to Comment ° Collapse Subdiscussion ° Lecretia Wilborn ° Lecretia Wilborn ° Nov 16, 2023

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

° Nov 16 at 2:20pm ° Manage Discussion Entry ° Do you think that children of illegal immigrants born in the United States Territory ought to be citizens of the United States? Do the 14th Amendment support this idea? Yes, of course they should. Due to the fact that the children was born in United States mean that they are apart of the U.S. no matter if their parents are immigrants, it does not stop them from being an American. That is just like asking if other children that are not an immigrant but are Americans, can they still consider other children can they be a citizen of the U.S. children are not ask to be in this world, adults makes the choice to have children. Children are innocent and they do not have any control over what the parents do. Yes, the 14th Amendment supports this. I read an article that stated "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein the reside." Work Cited: https://consititution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment ° Links to an external site. ° . Reply ° Reply to Comment ° Collapse Subdiscussion ° Charity Kewish ° Charity Kewish ° Nov 18, 2023 ° Nov 18 at 9:41am ° Manage Discussion Entry ° Lecretia, I think the more interesting question is whether small children, born abroad, and are brought here illegally by their parents, what is their status. This is the current controversy called DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and these kids are often called Dreamers. What do you think about these kids? Professor Kewish Reply ° Reply to Comment ° Collapse Subdiscussion ° Lecretia Wilborn ° Lecretia Wilborn ° Nov 20, 2023 ° Nov 20 at 2:55pm

° Manage Discussion Entry ° If the small children has been brought here illegally, then No they should not have the right to be apart of the United States, because you can not come to the US illegally, but in reality it is currently happening but at the same time when they are finally caught then they have to face their case head on. Reply ° Reply to Comment ° Collapse Subdiscussion ° Alicia Snider ° Alicia Snider ° Nov 19, 2023 ° Nov 19 at 7:40pm ° Manage Discussion Entry ° Hi Lecretia, I agree with your opinion on the topic. I, too, believe in the innocence of the children and think it's unfortunate that they bear the brunt of this debate by standing at the center of it. Especially, when the problem lies in the lawlessness of their parents and the continuing lack of integrity. The lack of respect for our laws and due process has led to an influx of "entitled" immigrants, more willing to steal citizenship than go through the process of becoming proper citizens, leaving their children in the crossfire. Reply

GOVT 201 Wk 4 DISCUSSION

Related Documents