TheAgitator.com
What Left and Right Agree On
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009Can’t remember where I read it first, but someone who isn’t me once posited if the Bill of Rights were put to a vote (under a different name and slightly different wording, of course), it would probably lose in a landslide. Seems about right.
Excellent, yet simple, way to open peoples eyes to more than simply a Reps vs Dems world.
Ah, yes. The hallowed Third Amendment, still respected by both parties, and still standing strong.
At least until the McCain-Frank Troop Quartering Act of 2012…
Heh. I love the way they had to have the third amendment explained to them.
Actually, now that we’re in a War On Terror, don’t we need to be quartering troops? I mean, just in case? You guys who don’t want soldiers in your living room just hate America.
It’s worth noting that the whole point of having a difficult-to-amend Constitution in the first place, not to mention enshrining particularly sacred freedoms in a special way (the Bill of Rights), is that it renders the will of the people moot on these issues except under very exceptional circumstances (i.e. the existence of a massive super-majority with the political will to go through the rigorous process of getting the document amended). Viewed in this light, it’s unsurprising (if a little sad) that so many people would be opposed to the basic freedoms outlined in the first ten Amendments, given that the highly symbolic placement of these rights was essentially a prediction on the part of the Founders that later generations would desire to circumscribe them. Another point worth noting is that it is not really necessary that citizens or even political figures agree with the Constitution as it is written, only that they respect (or, in the case of, say, judges, enforce) it as if they did.
JP, I wish I could click the Thumbs Up button fifty times.
You guys are just a bunch of anal retentive, doom-and-gloom, paranoid, fear mongers.
No one, Republican or Democrat, advocates scrapping the Bill of Rights. They just believe in interpreting them according to modern circumstances.
Back in the 18th century they didn’t have television where Satan could beam naughty words directly into your children’s heads. They didn’t have guns that could actually shoot without having to reload. People weren’t gaming the 4th Amendment by breaking laws in their houses and vehicles. Society wasn’t perpetually on the verge of apocalyptic collapse from an people walking around with pockets full of drugs and child porn. Finally, they didn’t have terrorists who hate us for our freedom.
Thankfully, we have three branches of government who, if they agree on anything, believe that the Constitution is a “living document” that can mean whatever it needs to mean at any given time. Just remember, this is a democracy. If a majority of the population thinks the word FUCK should be banned from existence, who the hell are you guys to complain about it? You should just go start your own country, you gaggle of whiny-ass pussies.
“Hey, liberals and conservatives, you’re all freedom-hating assholes.”
Nice marketing campaign there Reason. I’m sure libertarians will make huge gains in the next elections.
I am of course paraphrasing.
Whoever’s knocking #7 down must be new around here. I’ll vouch for Dave, he’s being sarcastic.
That was probably me, since I tend to think it is a living document.
“…if the Bill of Rights were put to a vote (under a different name and slightly different wording, of course), it would probably lose in a landslide.”
Yup, just the way most self-proclaimed “christians” I know would be lining up to crucify their supposed savior if he suddenly showed up and started spouting his pro-tolerance/anti-hypocrisy views.
Actually, given that the purpose of the Third Amendment was to resist government spying on people (troops were quartered not merely to save money on government barracks, but so they could keep an eye on what was going on) I’d say the government has pretty well sought to undermine that too with things like tracking-chip requirements for cell phones.
[...] Thanks, Radley. [...]
I notice that the “living document” (= “it means whatever we want”) folks very seldom interpret new restrictions on government power into the Constitution, only new areas into which government power should encroach.
I don’t particularly care for the “living” Constitution that allows for government that is continuously growing and expanding into new areas; to me that is too close to “metastasizing”. But, I suppose I should be more open-minded. After all, cancer is alive, right? Not great for the host, but alive…
“Thankfully, we have three branches of government who, if they agree on anything, believe that the Constitution is a “living document” that can mean whatever it needs to mean at any given time. Just remember, this is a democracy. If a majority of the population thinks the word FUCK should be banned from existence, who the hell are you guys to complain about it? You should just go start your own country, you gaggle of whiny-ass pussies.”
At one point the majority of the population of the United States believed that slavery was just and right, that alcohol should be banned and that women shouldnt vote.
Also we dont live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional/representative republic… this helps (sometimes) to keep the majority from trampling on the rights of the unpopular minority.
Dear Chris–
Take a deep breath and think about this sentence from Dave Krueger’s post: “Back in the 18th century they didn’t have television where Satan could beam naughty words directly into your children’s heads.” That is all.
–J.P.
#11 chance- please flesh out your reasoning for ‘I tend to think it is a living document’ because I tend to think like #15 freedomfan.
Marty, my reasoning is that if we strictly obey the idea that the constitution may only be interpreted as it was written in the late 18th century, that it would be incompatible with modern society in too many ways. For example, flogging is now considered cruel and unusual punishment. If we say we are only going to interpret that clause as it would have applied to the original framers, it would probably still be an acceptable punishment.
Also, there are just too many areas open for interpretation. I dare say you and I could read the exact same passage and get diametrically opposed interpretations. If the constitution wasn’t meant to be flexibly interpreted, it would have been 200 pages long and go into deep detail. It would also have a attached glossary.
[...] Agreeing on the Bill of Rights. to The Agitator. [...]
Well, I think few would argue the constitution requires no interpretation. But there is a difference between interpreting and adapting the constitution to modern society, while still adhering to the underlying concepts, and gutting those concepts altogether, thereby eliminating any substantive restraint on government. My objection to the people who believe in a “living constitution” is that I don’t think they support the underlying concepts, but rather they believe their social agenda should trump individual rights, and the Bill of Rights is thus a hindrance to them. But because the Bill of Rights is one of the founding ideals of US governance, they’re not comfortable saying “I am against the Bill of Rights” — hence the “living constitution.”
Why would the BoR fail muster today?
Because 99.99% of the folks are improperly educated wrt our form of government, natural law, Rights, and such.
If the Constitution was a “living document” to be reinterpreted as needed, why the f–k did the Framers implement such a rigid method of change, ie the amendment process. Answer: Because the Constitution IS NOT a living document to be reinterpreted as needed. If you want change, AMEND. If the majority agrees, you win. If not, you lose.
And since none of the branches of government hold any authority to interpret (research fundamental law theory and then think a while), just who interprets. Subordinates do not define superiors.
Tiocfaidh ar la!
Chance,
Nowhere does the Constitution sanction flogging and, aside from slavery which was properly eliminated by amendment, nowhere does it negate any citizen rights that we, today, think should be protected.
It does however say “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
There’s not a lot of interpretation required for that phrase and the principle is just as legitimate and integral to freedom today as it was then. But, today, there are no end to the exceptions that the Supreme Court has read into that short simple dictum.
The Constitution is a prescription for government. You can’t give government the authority to redefine what it says and still expect the document to be effective.
As it stands now, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court decides. There’s an amendment process to facilitate modernization, if required, but government doesn’t even propose amendments anymore because there’s no need. They just declare it a “living document” and change it’s meaning at will.
As I was away from home on vacation for the past week I am just now catching up here, in regard to the Bill of Rights, here is a short sweet article by Walter Williams on that subject:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/07/05/why-a-bill-of-rights/
And here is our next big fight for freedom:
http://dprogram.net/2009/07/05/strange-martial-law-via-food-control-hr-2749/