three-fifths clause

Audio: No, the Constitution is not racist—and never was.0
- May 11, 2023
This audio corrects myths about the Founders’ attitudes toward slavery and the purpose of the “three-fifths compromise.”
READ MORE
Defending the Constitution: The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ was not based on racism 0
- March 29, 2021
If you assume that counting persons is the proper basis for congressional representation, it’s easy to see how one could misread the reduction for slaves and the exclusion of non-tax-paying Indians as expressions of racism. However, many, probably most, of the framers did not think counting persons was the proper basis for representation.
READ MORE

The Constitution's Financial Terms 0
- October 28, 2015
Note: This was originally a four-part series published at the leading constitutional law website, “The Volokh Conspiracy,” which is affiliated with the Washington Post. This succession of four parts discusses such questions as why the Supreme Court was wrong to characterize the Obamacare insurance penalty as a “tax,” why the apportionment requirement was adopted and
READ MORE
Time Mag’s Constitutional Baby Babble 0
- June 26, 2011
Several readers sent me for comment a lengthy cover article in Time Magazine by managing editor Richard Stengel. Stengel’s piece is one result of new public interest in our Constitution and in “first principles”—interest that has forced political liberals (Stengel has been a paid Democratic activist) to think about the document’s real meaning. Previously, of
READ MORE

Contribute