Sotos wrote: As Maximus correctly said those agreements were signed under duress and after being blackmailed. The court system was also rigged as part of the "agreement". This is like saying to a slave a few centuries ago that there is nothing wrong with being a slave because it is permitted by the constitution. If the salve challenged this at the courts he would lose, because according to the law of the time there was nothing wrong in having slaves! If the slaves revolted to free themselves, would their former masters then say that the slaves "stole" from them their "legal constitutional rights"?
You are confusing what is right with what is legal. They are not the same thing. If someone is defined in law as a slave then legally they are a slave. When slavery was legally abolished in Britain, slave owners did say their property was being stolen from them and they were paid compensation for that loss (the former slaves were paid nothing) because that was the only LEGAL way to abolish slavery.
Sotos wrote:Even today many countries have some very nasty laws. To say that what is right is necessarily whatever the constitution happens to say, is simply not true.
I never said what is in the constitution is always morally right. I said it is what is legally true. You saying you can just ignore the law if YOU consider it 'morally wrong' is your prerogative but that does not make such actions LEGAL.
Sotos wrote:Therefore to compare human rights, with unjust and racist constitutional rights is incorrect. Violating human rights is wrong. Removing racist constitutional rights is NOT wrong.
Removing legally granted constitutional rights outside of any legal process by force is simply illegal. All you are saying is our illegalities, our thefts were morally justified and yours were / are not.
Sotos wrote:But removing racist constitutional rights was certainly not a crime.
Removing such rights that were legally conferred, no matter how unjust YOU may consider them, outside of any and all legal process by the use of force including depriving individuals of their right to life, like in the case of my uncle, is by definition a crime. That you claim otherwise just indicates the you proclaim the preeminence of the law when it gives you what you want and just ignore it when it does not.