system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I don't understand how some Americans reconcile that the U.S. constitution - a document on civil liberties - was in large part authored and approved by slave owners, and continue to consider it the gospel with regard to freedoms etc. CMV

Like the title says, I can't see how many U.S. citizens can continue to regard the constitution as a reliable authority on civil liberties, when large parts of it were authored and approved by slave owners. It seems to be enough, to many Americans, to simply say of something: "It is my constitutional right" without considering whether that is actually a reasonable explanation at all. 

Of course, I don't argue that other countries do not have documents on liberties that were authored in times of repression that are still considered important today. For instance, the Magna Carta, which was issued during a time when serfdom - a form of "land slavery" - was common, and indeed, these serfs were generally exempt from the freedoms offered by the charter. What IS unique, however, is the place the U.S. constitution holds in the minds and hearts of many U.S. citizens. You don't hear of English people quoting the Magna Carta during civil rights protests, yet the constitution is often the first thing to be mentioned during a civil rights issue in the U.S.

I can't help but feel that a document on freedom largely authored by slave owners has little merit in a modern society. CMV. 

Edit: To those calling Ad Hominem, I hear ya, but I don't think that's fair. As Buoie said, framer's intent cannot be ignored simply because a law seems like a good idea. I'm not saying "It's wrong because they were slave owners". I'm saying "Shouldn't we take a critical approach to a civil liberties document written by those who clearly had a pretty shite idea of what freedom means". To claim that we could really divorce the fact that these men treated others like human cattle with the fact that they wrote a document which is considered by many to be integral to American freedom is morose. I'm not saying that they were wrong about one thing -> ergo they are wrong about this other thing.
gpt
for what it's worth, even the constitution implicitly understood the contradictions inherent in its values and the institution of slavery. this is most notable in the infamous 3/5 compromise, but in the fact that the constitution gave congress the power to ban slavery but not for 20 years after its enactment. 

additionally, your viewpoint says nothing about the living nature of the constitution. the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments substantially change the nature of the constitution and - in a sense - eliminate the inconsistencies you're talking about.