We have no concept of free speech, due process, or individual rights in Asia where I’m from. Where I’m from, if the community doesn’t like you, we can just drive you out of the community. Am I “disenfranchised” by having to live in a liberal democracy created by white men?

▲

coldtea 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, the same white men created Jim Crow and seggregation.

If you were a black man would you have been disenfranchised when those laws were in force?

I'd say yes.

The fact that it was/is worse elsewhere, e.g. in some places in Asia, doesn't make the critique (of how white Constitutional/law makers historically disenfranchised certain demographics in the US) invalid.

▲

rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-]

> you were a black man would you have been disenfranchised when those laws were in force?

In a counter-factual world where the founders hadn’t exported their ideas all over the world, I’d be disenfranchised in my own home country! Because everyone was disenfranchised. Everyone was a serf.

	▲	coldtea 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		In the real world, as a black, you would be disenfranchised in the US, even into the 1960s (and even now in certain systemic aspects), and the Constitution didn't prevent that. In fact it was written by people owning slaces or disenfranchizing blacks, the poor, and women, themselves. And what we're debating in this subthread, is whether "a constitution interpreted precisely as written by wealthy, landed 18th century white men disenfranchises every person who is not a wealthy, landed 18th century white man, roughly in proportion to how much they share in common with such a person". The fact that the constitution inspired changes "all over the world" doesn't change that fact. Regarding slavery, which is something somewhat major you'd agree, the Constitution didn't even inspire enough within the US itself, since it took until the Civil War (and, more importantly, it took a civil war) to get it abolished. >Because everyone was disenfranchised. Everyone was a serf. You try to paint it as some unique development, but things like Magna Carta and habeas corpus (and even a bill of rights) already existed, as you're aware, the Swiss cantons had democratic (even direct democratic) institutions and the landsgemeinde system, and other such developments. Slavery too had already disappeared in practice in western europe, but also many other places, centuries earlier. Which is likely why you had to change it to "serfdom", but even that wasn't applicable. The British, the Dutch, and other peoples had also quit (or effectively quit) serfdom as well, before the Constitution. Why, even russia (famous for its miserable serfdom system) had abolished serfdom right about before the Civil War!

▲

goatlover 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those rights came to exist in the west in response to kings and tyrants doing whatever they wanted at the expense of their subjects. Also because communities sometimes do bad things to people not able to simply drive away. Pretty sure Asia has had it's share of human rights abuses.

▲

datsci_est_2015 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, and politely, wtf is that logic?

You are disenfranchised when your judicial branch interprets law in a way that disproportionately benefits only the people who are most similar to the authors.

Also, how wealthy are you? Why did you bring up your race instead of how much land you own? Why pull the culture war into this? Certain interpretations of the constitution disproportionately benefit people who own a lot of land.

▲

rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-]

You brought up race. I’m just responding.

	▲	datsci_est_2015 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The notion of “white” in the 18th century is completely detached from the notion of “white” in the 21st century, especially in the context of the US. Did you edit your comment?
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

IAmBroom a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You seem to lack an understanding of technical legal terms in US courts, which is frankly pretty usual even for US citizens.

"Franchise" is the right to vote. Disenfranchisement is legal prohibition against voting. Social behaviors have nothing to do with it.

"Jus soli" is a legal term in English, defined by the chief authority (Black's Dictionary of Legal Terms) as rights achieved by one's place of birth (instead of by one's parentage).

Diplomats are only partially subject to civil law as you have claimed. There is also no practical leverage available to the courts if their funds are not stored in places subject to US jurisdiction. So, a minor backing for your claim, but one that is not in practice applied, nor considered relevant by precedent in regards to the XIVth.

I'm sorry you're being attacked so vociferously in this thread, as you are arguing in good faith with the knowledge you have, but your knowledge base is insufficient for the confidence you show.