Publishing Company Puts Warning Label on Constitution 676
Wilder Publication is under fire for putting warning labels on copies of historical US documents, including the Constitution. The label warns "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today." From the article: "The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they 'might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.'"
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In keeping with tradition, really (Score:1, Informative)
Dvorkin says, The US Constitution itself is a politically correct document. Look how it dances around the issue of slavery: "Person held to Service or Labour"
Like most people who focus on the issue of slavery, you're forgetting the practices of indentured servitude, which was probably more widespread at time than was slavery.
And the South didn't fight over slavery; that issue didn't enter the war til later, and Lincoln was only bent on hurting the south, not helping the slaves -- read his own words about it. The war was about states' rights, and against crushing economic pressure brought by northern industrialists.
Re:So.... what's the outrage again? (Score:2, Informative)
I'll be it
I think the word you were looking for was "albeit"
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Teabaggers (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, and anyone who read the Federalist Papers would also understand that the general welfare clause was not in itself a grant of power to the federal government, but rather discussing why the federal government was granted the powers it was given.
Likewise, many writings by the Founders, as well as definitions of the time, suggest that the commerce clause would not apply the manufacture of goods, but rather the exchange or transport of goods.
Re:Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:3, Informative)
Also, it's vague because the way it is written, it seems you can have arms because you are part of the militia since the militia was to supplement any standing army.
Little known fact: people still had to register ownership of their weapons so the government knew who they could call on to muster the militia. The NRA will never admit to it because that would do away with their efforts to not have people register today.
For reference: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5258192-504383.html [cbsnews.com]
And for the link to the Militia Act of 1792 which required white men (only men) to be notified upon their 18th birthday that they are automatically enrolled in the militia: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm [constitution.org]
After all, if you're going to call forth the militia, it's a good idea to have some way of knowing who actually owns a weapon, don't ya think?
Weird Publisher (Score:3, Informative)
If you actually check out the link for the publisher [wilderpublications.com] they're mostly reprinting old "positive thinking" stuff. I smell publicity stunt. Then again, it could just be a debunked, false [slashdot.org] issue.
Re:well, it is true. (Score:2, Informative)
You seem to recall that, do you? I suggest you check your facts [factcheck.org].
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
To the best of my understanding, many whose signature was solicited for the Bill of Rights considered it superfluous and perhaps even harmful, specifically because it did not prohibit anything which would have otherwise been permitted under the original Constitution. Some wanted it as an additional guarantee against later reinterpretation or undiscovered loopholes, but—as others feared—it has more often been taken as a license to do anything not explicitly prohibited, contrary to their design.
So the original version did include those protections; it just didn't state them explicitly, because it didn't need to. Even before the amendments were passed, the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to violate anything in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was more a statement of intent than an actual change in the nature of the Constitution.
Re:Maybe it's just me but... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, yes. America is bad (tm); the rest of the world is good. Look at it this way. If that original 'compromise' had not been made, the USA would never have existed and, a few years later, the most devestating war that had ever been fought in human history would not have resulted in the deaths of vast numbers of Caucasian soldiers, more than all the rest of America's wars combined, not to mention the complete devastation of the countryside and a complete disruption of the economy.
Slavery was brought to the colonies by British subjects in 1619 and institutionalized by the British system for 160 years. When the US became a country those pushing for a continuation of slavery had been British subjects. So America inherited the blame. The British did not entirely ban slavery until 1840, when the last "apprentices" were freed. This was a scant generation before this ountry did the same thing.
We've lost sight of the fact that until 1865 the "United States" was a plural noun. By 'today's standards' Washington, Jefferson, and Adams are dangerous right wingers threatening the stability of the socialist state. But there is a tenth amendment. Though the feds would prefer you forget that it exists, there is a tenth amendment (and a second). Why not go read them? In fact, read all 27.
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:5, Informative)
For starters it doesn't mention how the militia should be regulated, what constitutes Arms or where they have the right to keep and bear them.
For that you do what "historiographers" do: Go back to the writings of the time and find out what the words meant to the authors and the other politicians who debated, suggested, and approved the wording. These people wrote a LOT of stuff which has survived in the historical record, much of it explaining what they meant or debating what it should say and why.
The editor of _The Federalist_ - the political party paper of one of the major factions, in which much of this stuff was published - was Noah Webster, who was also a language reformer who wrote the then-definitive textbooks for teaching American English and compiled and published the first dictionary of the American English language. Timeline:
- 1783 Speller published.
- 1784 Grammar published.
- 1785 Reader published.
- 1787 Constitution completed.
- 1789 Bill of Rights completed.
- 1806 Webster's first dictionary published.
It's pretty clear that
- "Militia" was "everybody with their privately-owned arms" (later defined in law as divided into the "organized militia" - males of appropriate age except for those exempt due to things like being in other government service, and the "unorganized militia" - everybody else able and willing to fight.
- "Arms" in private hands at the time included warships, cannon (both small and large, including crew-served weapons on shipboard and on carriages), the latest smooth bore, rifle, and pistol technology, rockets, bombs, bayonets, swords, daggers, and other edged weapons, etc. Figure on it including anything of potential military application. (They also understood and promoted progress and invention, and knew about attempts at automatic weapons and interchangeable parts for mass production. So figure it includes future developments, just as "press" includes automated high-speed presses and broadcast media, and "papers" includes electronic records.)
- "Well-regulated" at the time meant "well-adjusted" or "in accurate operating condition", not "under the rule of a government official". Like a voltage regulator, not a beaurocrat. A clock was "well-regulated" to keep accurate time. A double-barreled shotgun was "well regulated" if the shot patterns from both barrels hit the same spot. "Well-regulated" for a militia meant that they had training in how to shoot and how to work together. At the time this was typically done on a local level, with periodic practice and with officers elected by the militiamen themselves.
- Where: 1785 August 19. (Jefferson to Peter Carr). "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a mederate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."
Obviously Jefferson didn't completely agree with Webster's attempts to "regulate" American English spelling.
Re:Copyright (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Copyright (Score:4, Informative)
A "strict interpretation" of the Constitution is anything but unconstitutional.
You have it backwards. Any power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government is a power that they do not have. This is explicitly stated by the 9th and 10th amendments.
This is the Opt-in equivalent to Federal power, as was originally intended.. as opposed to the Opt-out version that is currently the practice in Washington.
Re:Copyright (Score:1, Informative)
In this context, "progressive" does not mean "seeking alternative to the status quo". It means change via increased government authority. Perhaps you can explain how the foundation the Founder's laid out was an increase in government authority over the monarchy?
FTFY.
Why let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
- James Madison in a letter to James Robertson
It seems that the same people that have no problems with using Founder's personal correspondence as a basis for "separation of church and state" suddenly develop a case of amnesia when it comes to Madison's writings.
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:4, Informative)
Why did the British march on Lexington & Concord? To grab cannons. Why did the Mexicans attack the town of Gonzales? To grab a cannon--see it on the "Come and Take It" flag! The first battles of both American and Texan independence were fought over the right of the citizens to posess field artillery.
Re:It IS unconstitutional. (Score:3, Informative)
In fact the very founding of the nation was over tax laws, so pretending like the Teabaggers are crazy on this is really unfair and inaccurate.
Er, it was about taxation without representation. Please don't re-write history to ignore that part of it. The FFs were upset that they were being taxed with no say as to how they were taxed. The Tea Party folks, by contrast aren't upset about the representation and are upset about the fact that this is a democracy and the fact that they didn't get their way in the past two elections*. The taxes they get are appointed via our representatives, voted in by them.
So, basically, they're 180 degrees out of phase with the Founding Fathers.
* Witness the fact that taxes are at their lowest in a long while right now, yet their outrage is apparently at an all-time high. Perspective, among other things, is lacking.
Re:Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
The supremacy clause refers to the fact that Federal law will supersede conflicting state laws, when that Federal law is pursuant to exercising the specific powers that are delegated to the Federal government in Article 1, Section 8. There the Constitution gives the Federal government 17 or 18 enumerated powers, and no more. Anything Congress does outside the enumerated powers is not law.
--
"...the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general." -- James Madison
For those who think the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality: "The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself." -- Thomas Jefferson, about the U.S. Constitution (that power belongs to the states)
"... whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force" -- Thomas Jefferson