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.'"
Re:A Better Target (Score:2, Interesting)
Worrying trend (Score:5, Interesting)
The constitution wasn't written with symbolism and to make it be hard to read. No. The constitution and other works of that time period dealing with politics were made for the every day voter and the vocabulary, though slightly archaic is a whole lot easier than that of, say, Shakespeare and lacks the annoying, long, wordiness of later authors like Dickens making it very accessible.
What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?
Warning Labels OK for Evolution, not for Slavery? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's amusing about the flap is that I'd be willing to bet that at least some, if not many, of the people upset by this have no problem at all with warning labels on biology textbooks.
Re:So.... what's the outrage again? (Score:2, Interesting)
Rights for slaves were outlined in documents after the civil war, and rights for women were outlined at the Seneca Falls convention. Wilder is trying to put a "warning" on all of those documents, the documents that still hold true and found our country (I'll be it, corruptly) to this very day.
In keeping with tradition, really (Score:5, Interesting)
The US Constitution itself is a politically correct document. Look how it dances around the issue of slavery: "Person held to Service or Labour" and "three fifths of all other Persons" are the really egregious ones. Everyone knew who these "other Persons" were, but nobody wanted to say it. It wasn't until 1865, almost 80 years later, that the word "slavery" appeared in the 13th amendment, when it was safely in the past tense -- and then in 1870, when the mealy-mouthed Southern gentry, who had been willing to fight a war on behalf of slavery but could never talk about it when Yankees were about, were back in Congress, the 15th gently whispers about "previous condition of servitude."
So for those who think PC is some new an unique blight on our language, sorry, it's pretty much part of our national DNA.
There are other instances which still cause trouble today. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that it's illegal for the government to give money to churches just as much as "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that it's illegal for for the government to ban them. And "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is explanatory, not prescriptive; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the part that has the force of law, and all they really needed to write. But there's been enough wiggle room in the phrasing for the enemies of liberty to exploit for the last 220+ years.
Re:A Better Target (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no doubt that the Bible relates a number of very scary concepts (The story of Lot, restricting warfare to damages no greater than inflicted upon your tribe (that eye for an eye thing), or even its revision by Jesus, i.e. Love for one's enemies and do good to those that hate you).
But the real question is why many people equate the Constitution to a Holy book. The Constitution does discuss slavery as if it were a reasonable institution, and that can be hard for children to deal with.
Does this require a warning label? I don't think so, but giving it one doesn't bother me given some of its historical contents.
Re:WARNING (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Worrying trend (Score:3, Interesting)
It's simple political correctness: the Constitution mentions slavery, and so must be flagged as "racist". There are a lot of old pop-culture works with racial stereotypes for which this sort of warning is approriate, and I suspect some simple keyword trigger here. It shows how lame their classification system must be, but I doubt they were making a complicated political statement.
Interpret it correctly (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with interpretation is that it's subjective and changes over time. Also, human language is vague.
When you hear people claim they're for strict interpretation, that's a somewhat dishonest shorthand for favoring someone who reads the constitution to suit their specific needs and prejudices.
Re:sound and fury, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Teabaggers (Score:2, Interesting)
To oversimplify, there are two senses of so-called "Living Document."
The conservative view: it is a living document in the sense that as times change, it can be changed by amendment. The rules aren't set in stone; we just have to sit down and carefully think out what we want, make sure it is what we want, vote on it, and make the necessary changes.
The liberal view: it is a living document in that it says whatever we want it to say, whenever we want it to say it. If it doesn't say what we want it to say, well, then that part is 'old and outdated' or 'doesn't reflect the times' and we can ignore it.
The first view makes change slowly; there is no instant gratification. We have a damn hard constitution to change compared to other nations -- Ireland, for example, requires only a simple majority vote, 50.1% -- but it serves to protect somewhat against passing fads and the very real tyranny of the majority. (It doesn't always work, e.g., prohibition, but it works most of the time.) It also means that injustice can take time to be eliminated. Finally, there are definitely gaps in the Constitution; ours is one of the briefest written. It's a version 1.1 Constitution (1.0 being the Magna Carta in Western society), where other nations have had 200 years to see what works and what doesn't. The 9th & 10th amendment reserve those 'gaps' to the states & people. If there's been no legislation there, it should be legal conduct. Conversely, one does well to remember that the ambit of 'health, welfare, and police power' is quite a area in which the states can act.
The second view though is just downright dangerous. It basically throws the rule of law right out the window. It isn't about saying "Man means man, woman, and child" in the Constitution, it's about saying entire sections are contrary to their plain language. Jurisprudence took a major nosedive in The New Deal and hasn't recovered since. For an example of a Living Constitution, read George Orwell's Animal Farm [wikipedia.org]
Ultimately, for me, I trust a Justice like Hugo Black [wikipedia.org] to do his job -- even if he is more extreme than my views -- more than I do someone like Justice John Paul Stevens [wikipedia.org], who plays fast and loose with the Constitution at times.
Final thoughts... We are not a homogeneous people by any means. We're probably the most diverse populace on earth in terms of ethnicity, culture, values, etc. Does it make any sense at all that the exact same principles should apply to everyone? Only in the most basic sense, to guarantee our rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Californians are not Texans are not Alaskans are not New Yorkers. Each state has laws to fit its populace and the Constitution should not be bent willy-nilly to try to make them the same. If we wanted the exact same, we'd change the laws ourselves.
(Also, please don't get into the trap of arguing, "Oh woe is me, politicians are corrupt, the government is corrupt, I shall never get my way!" That's just plain horse shit. That's the same people who either vote and bitch that the system is broken because they lose, or worse, don't vote "because my vote doesn't matter" and then continue to bitch anyway. If you've got a better system, let's hear it -- it still beats everything else out there.)
Re:A Better Target (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really think them thar injuns are going to attack?
That was never the point of the second amendment. Did your US History classes really fail you so badly?
Also remember where it says "all men" it meant not women and not blacks.
It no longer means that, by virtue of the amendments that changed its meaning.
That's how amendments work, you see. They modify the meaning of the original text, such that the original text should now be taken in the context of the amendments which apply to it.
Re:In keeping with tradition, really (Score:5, Interesting)
...
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.
Well, that's the story that the South has been selling for 140 years or so anyway. Not slavery, so siree! Just Northern Oppression! Relentless repetition by Southerners (the North stopped caring particularly a century ago) has given this claim a wholly unwarranted veneer of plausibility. Examination of the words and deeds of the men who actually led secession reveals this to be Southern fantasy.
Read Charles B. Dew's Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War http://www.upress.virginia.edu/apostles/index.html [virginia.edu]. Dew examines the actual speeches, arguments, and publications of the secessionists in the months after Lincoln's election, when the South seceeded, fired on Union forts, and thus began the Civil War. The remarkable thing is that the preservation of slavery was the only thing on these men's minds. At the outset of the Civil War, the leaders of the South were of one mind - they agreed unanimously that the purpose of secession was to keep African-Americans enslaved.
Destroying slavery was not first on Lincoln's agenda, but preserving it was first on the minds of the South.*
It is striking that as soon as the smoke cleared from the battlefields, the Southerners tried to make slavery disappear from the picture and recast it as a "noble cause". One might almost suppose they realized how profoundly in the wrong they were, and that history would revile them without a whitewash.
(* And there is a classic book: The Mind of the South by W.J. Cash that makes it clear how central subjugation of African Americans was to Southern identity, to poor whites just as much as rich landowners.)
Re:3/5ths compromise (Score:5, Interesting)
That's correct. The Cherokee that lived in South Carolina paid taxes, counted as whole free persons, obeyed the laws, and even appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court when their tribal lands were being confiscated by the State.
Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the Cherokee, that they could keep their homes, but a certain asshole president ignored the court's ruling and used the army to force the Cherokee to move to the western territories. If anybody should have been impeached, it should have been him - Andrew Jackson (D).
But because it was Indians, nobody cared enough to defend them, not even their own representatives. Kinda like how people turned a blind eye when innocent Americans were thrown-into concentration camps & their property confiscated by President FDR.
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, human language is vague.
****A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.****
How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!
"A well regulated militia" - what exactly is a militia? When exactly does one become "well regulated"
"the right" - is this an absolute right? Can it be contingent on something else, such as obeying the law?
"the people" - who are the people? Does it refer to individuals or the collective? If it's the former, is it everyone, or only adults? What about foreign citizens?
"keep and bear" - What exactly does this entail? Does the right to "keep and bear" also give the right to buy and sell? Can you bear the guns everywhere or only to certain places?
"bear Arms" - what exactly are the arms? Does it include all weapons or only those envisioned by the framers?
"shall not be infringed" - When is the right infringed - is it infringed if some guns are banned or only if all guns are banned? What about if all guns are banned but other weaponry is available? What if guns are not banned but are made prohibitively expensive - does this infringe on the right?
If you've ever read a modern contract you'll know the lengths lawyers have to go to to try to remove all uncertainty - and they almost never succeed. Derrida said that since every word is defined only by other words it doesn't matter how far back you go, you can never get to a solid anchor; change the underlying assumptions that the reader of a text holds and you change the meaning of the text, even though the words are still the same. Even if you could give an absolutely solid answer to every question I posed above - and you can't, no-one can - there would still be more questions. As the GP said - human language is vague.
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:3, Interesting)
No it doesn't. Try buying an RPG, or a tank, or a nuke. Let me know how that works out for you.
Re:Copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
The progressives wrote it, why would they not like it?
First they pushed for government schools and then undermined the curriculum to remove all study of the Constitution beyond the Preamble.
You are right that when I was in school, we only had to memorize the Preamble and the first 10 Amendments. But we were tested over every single line in it, and it was read in parts the equivalent of no less than 10 times in class, and we were expected to read it as many times at home as necessary to understand every clause (well, it was a redacted one, so we didn't need to learn the redacted parts as closely, but still were tested on those as part of the Amendment that affected it).
Beyond that the texts tell the kids what it 'says' without studying the actual text.
We had a booklet that contained the Constitution and nothing else. Unlike regular text books, that pamphlet was ours to keep forever. It's the only "textbook" I recall being given away in school that didn't need to be returned.
So, everything you say is exactly the opposite of my experience in public school. Perhaps the problem is that you went to shit schools. That could also explain some other parts of your argument...
Re:In keeping with tradition, really (Score:3, Interesting)
Lincoln's overriding concern was holding the Union together
That's kind of the point. The South's reason for secession may have been the preservation of slavery, but the North's reason for fighting them was to prevent the secession, not to end slavery, at least in the beginning. Obviously "fighting to end slavery" made for much better PR later in the war, and both sides tried to put the best spin they could on the matter. I'm not trying to say that South was guiltless, by any means. But the North should have let them secede, treating their escaped slaves as political refugees and working through diplomatic and economic channels to fix their internal policies. Or at least acknowledge that the "Civil War" was really a war of conquest and subjugation rather than downplaying it as internal politics.
BTW, I speak as a Northerner; none of my family (so far as I know) is from any former Confederate state.
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:3, Interesting)
By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!
No (was Re:Yes) (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong.
It did not include indentured servants, quite explicitly. The intention and reality of the 3/5 compromise was applied overwhelmingly to blacks.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:2, Interesting)
I can find you a lot of free speech activists who don't have a problem with the obscenity conviction of Max Hardcore.
Some people lack critical thinking skills, some people lack conviction, and some people believe that rights should be limited. Doesn't make any of 'em right.
To be fair to the NRA, they aren't really a gun-rights group, and haven't been in my lifetime. They're primary mission seems to be to keep compromising on gun rights whenever put to the test. Now the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) on the other hand, have a little more... clarity.
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:1, Interesting)
No, by his (very correct) logic, people _are_ allowed to own nuclear weapons.
Maybe, since technical progress has now brought us newer, more dangerous weapons, some of them should be off-limits. If so, it's a simple matter of amending the constitution -- and I think there'd be no trouble passing an amendment permitting congress to regulate nukes (in practice, banning them for private citizens, perhaps allowing a theoretical license for corporations engaged in PNEs with appropriate oversight). Isn't that why we have the ability to amend the Constitution in the first place?
On second thought, I guess there would be trouble -- since passing such an amendment implies that it was needed, it would represent a tacit statement that congress does not have the power to regulate any arms not covered, and would be a powerful argument for judicial overturn of the NFA. Since practically all politicians (Republocrat or Demican, "pro-gun" or anti-gun) want to keep the NFA, they would try to block it with the excuse that it wasn't needed and they had more important things to do.
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:3, Interesting)
No. The constitution says that the people have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. So we should ask: Should people have that right? Probably not. This is what article five (amendment) is for; to adapt the constitution when social and technological changes exceed the scope it was designed to address.
The fact that it hasn't been so amended (and bio-weapons forbidden to both the people and the government as well as nuclear) is a reflection of the failure of the legislature to do their duty, and a failure of the people to hold the legislature to their oaths.
Laws that are made, contrary to the authorization(s) of the constitution, are unauthorized laws. They (the government) would like you to think they're perfectly good laws unless the supreme court strikes them down... but they aren't. They're no good right out of the gate, because there is no authorization for the feds to make them.
The constitution says arms, and that's what it means. If we don't want it to be that general, we need to amend it via the only authorized path, article five. Until we do, what it means is perfectly clear, and there is no authorized power that allows the government to change that meaning.
What they are doing now is using unauthorized power to coerce the population by threat of force, violence, imprisonment.
Re:Interpret it correctly (Score:3, Interesting)
The Founders considered a standing army (which is a "well-regulated militia") to be the single biggest threat to freedom. And the reason was simple: they knew history, and in their day (just as in many small countries in the 20th century), standing armies had a nasty habit of taking over governments.
But there was another militia: the general militia. This was not well-regulated. In fact, the general militia was specifically described in historical documents as every able-bodied male over a certain age.
In any case, as much as the Founders did not like armies, they also knew that they might need one to defend the country from foreign invasion. And that worried them. What to do? Well, they said, let's make sure that there will always be a force that can oppose the standing army if necessary: the general militia. That is to say, everybody else.
So: "A well regulated militia" (standing army) "being necessary to the security of a free State" (to repel invaders), "the right of the people" (the general militia) "to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (In case the army gets out of hand.)
So the reason we have a right to keep and bear arms (and mind you this specifically meant military arms, not BB guns or hunting rifles) is to protect ourselves from our own government and its army, if necessary.
Hand written bills? (Score:1, Interesting)
Perhaps we should start requiring all new bills to be hand written in calligraphy. That would force some conciseness.
Re:Copyright (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to "expand its powers", no, but to spend its money. If Congress decides it is in the general welfare to buy us all ponies, it is within it Constitutional authority "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" to do so. But if Congress decides it is in the general welfare to make us all take riding lessons upon pain of imprisonment, it does not have that power.
It could, however, probably figure out a way to use its power of taxation or interstate commerce regulation to encourage people to take riding lessons, by offering tax breaks to riding teachers, say, or by requiring cargo to be taken across state lines only on pony-back.
That's why we pick our Congress democratically (at least, in theory, corruption and the two-party stranglehold not withstanding); if you think Congress buying us ponies is a waste of money, or if you think it's ridiculous that interstate commerce must go by pony, you get to try to vote them out.
Hey, I wish our system of government could get us to something like Huxley's Island [huxley.net] , but I don't think so. (Huxley did write more than one book, you know.)
Re:Copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you just saying that you think certain things are 'unconstitutional' and thus 'not law' in a valid sense, even though we all live by it anyway? Things like Welfare which aren't enumerated and thus 'not law'?
Yes, I am saying that, but not "just" that. "Welfare programs", per se, are administered by the States and thus it is not really part of the discussion, although the Federal mandates that established it probably aren't worth the paper they are printed on. More to the point are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are clearly not part of the powers that were delegated the Federal government. And the same applies to the recent "Health Care Reform" disaster. (I put that in quotes because even if it were constitutional, it really did little to actually "reform" what needed reforming.)
But yes, you have that basically right: although the Federal government overstepped its bounds in creating those institutions, they were accepted by the states at the time, even though (many people argue today) they never should have been. Because even if they are not legal or constitutional, by now they are pretty hard to get rid of. So they are "illegal" in the sense that Congress had no legal power to give birth to them, yet they are established parts of our society. What a mess. And THAT is what you get when you ignore Constitutional bounds. And by the way: even the best estimates say that all of those institutions are soon going to be bankrupt.
Here is the biggest issue: The Constitution created a Federal government, as a compact between the 13 states. "Federal" is a word that refers to a "federation", which is a group of equals. This is in stark contrast to a "National" government, which would have been a supreme government ruling over the states. This is an important distinction. The United States is not a "nation" in the strict sense of the word. The United States is a "federation" of states (it's even in the NAME!). This is stated by the founding fathers in so many words, many times in historical documents.
The states formed the Federal government to do things that it made sense for a federation of states to do: manage a common system of currency, resolve trade disputes between the states, provide for a common defense, and so on. In all, there were 17 (some say 18) specific powers given to the Federal government, which are listed ("enumerated") in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
This brings us to a quote by Madison I posted elsewhere in this thread: "...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. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison "
By "confined to specified objects", he is referring to the powers delegated to the Federal government by Article 1, Section 8. All other powers (as clarified in the 10th Amendment) are reserved to the states, or to the people. Note that Madison specifically says here that the states have more power than the Federal government. This is also inherent in the word "delegated" which so often appears: a higher authority "delegates" responsibility to a subordinate. In this case, the states "delegated" 17 (or 18) powers to the Federal government. ALL other power belongs to the states, or the people. So when Jefferson wrote:
"... whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force"
The "general government" is the Federal government... the one that is common between the states. Assuming "undelegated powers", then, means doing anything outside the 17 (18) powers that were delegated to the Federal government by Article 1, Section 8. And what he states there is that if they DO try to assume powers that were not given to them, then any resulting law is "unauthoritative, void, and of no force". It has no lawful authority behind it. I