Without the three-fifths rule, there wouldn't have been a Constitution of the United States - not one that governed the American South, at any rate - because the South wouldn't have ratified it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
But the Constitution was made not only for southern and northern states, but for states neither northern nor southern, namely, the western states, their coming in being foreseen and provided for.
A Constitution should be short and obscure.
Power's not what the Constitution was about.
Lots of countries have great constitutions, but their leaders have a practice of ignoring the rules whenever they feel like it.
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.
The Constitution was about a limitation on power.
The whole basis of the Constitution was a restriction of power, and the whole basis of the federalist system was that there was not one sovereign centralized power from which all authority flows.
It is becoming more widely acknowledged that it is better to have a good constitution than not having a perfect one.
There are loads of countries that have nice written constitutions like ours. But there aren't loads of countries where they're followed.
In the Constitution of the American Republic there was a deliberate and very extensive and emphatic division of governmental power for the very purpose of preventing unbridled majority rule.