The US Constitution and Slavery

The other day Senator and GOP Presidental hopeful John McCain and his wife were guests on the day time woman talk show The View. During their interview period John McCain was describing how he would only elect judges to the Supreme Court that will adhear to a strick interpretation of the US Constitution. Comedian and Talk Show host Woopie Goldberg stated well the Constitution had slavery, does that mean I would return to slavery. Of course Mr. McCain stated that no it wouldn't.

Both of these people are wrong however, not so much about the slavery issue, but about the interpretation of the US constitution. I am by no means a Constitutional lawyer, all I know is all of graduate history research and my pocket constitution guide.

Slavery was never in the US Constitution. It was the absence of any law stating for or against slavery that caused the confusion and made the addition of the 13th and 14th admenment. The US Constituin (minus the admenments) is just a document that states how the government is to be arranged and the requirements for each branch. It is the admenments attached to the Constitution that dictates federal law.

For instance in the issue of slavery the argument was that the slave owning states declared that human beings were PROPERTY. Therefore right to own properity is protected by the US Constitution. It took the 13th admenment added after the Civil War to establish owning another human being as illegal. Then the argument was when slave owners demanded reperations for properity (slaves) that were confiscated by the US Government. This in turn took the 14th admenment.

The states then tried to stop blacks from voting, this is turn took the addition of the 15th amendment.
No one, the United States founding fathers included could have forseen the interpretation of the US Constitution this way. Now I know that people such as Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. Jefferson released his slaves after he died.
This is the problem when people say they want strick constitutional lawyers or liberal court judges. None are right.

This is another argument with the Roe VS. Wade aportion argument.