Slashdot Mirror
Publishing Company Puts Warning Label on Constitution
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.'"
Damned right, if it was written today no one would be able to read it without paying some exorbitant price, and you better not expect to share the document with anyone else!
Warning, this constitution is of its time, its views might not reflect the actions of those sworn to protect it and uphold it or the courts sworn to interpret it correctly.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
In before the trolls!
*reads article*
Oh...
I think the Bible would be a better book to slap that kind of a warning on.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's morons like this that give the morons I hate on the right ammunition.
----- obSig
I'm mystified. Why is somebody unhappy about having advice to take historical context in mind when reading the constitution, which in its original doesn't reflect (for example) voting rights for women and former slaves?
What a failed troll...since both of those were fixed with Amendments. That's how it's done, you know...
The warning itself says "Copyright 2007". Why is FoxNews complaining about this now, 3 years later? I'm sure they'll try to blame this on Obama, the people who support him, and their 'attack on America' somehow.
And why is Slashdot acting as a frontman for FoxNews?
Hate to break up of the controversy with facts, but this disclaimer is just boilerplate the distributor puts on all of his products. He publishes lots of public domain works and he got sick an tired of people complaining about the language or mores.
You can get the full story on his blog: http://warrenlapine.livejournal.com/
I've known Warren for years. If he had been trying to make a point, he would flat out say that was what he was doing.
I would direct you to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which are part of the constitution and kindly ask that you STFU.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
``This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.'' Uh, yeah.
The "disclaimer" is not only mere boilerplate for all their historical documents, but a value neutral and true observation. The trolling comes from pure speculation.
And it gets better: `By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence.'' Right. I seem to recall W saying that it was just a "goddam piece of paper." Nothing controversial there.
The fact that we've already amended the Constitution 27 times suggests fairly strongly that the disclaimer is true as stated.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
So was income tax, but I've heard quite a few Tea Party folks claiming it's unconstitutional.
Because it's still perfectly acceptable to consider a black person as only 3/5 of a person, and it's perfectly acceptable to refer to native Americans as 'savages' (as in the Declaration of Independence).
Warning: This book may contain facts that are incompatible with the superstitious fairy tales that your parents ignorantly used to scare you into being a good boy.
What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?
Except this isn't banning anything. Great slippery slope fallacy though!
I think the title describes the only warning the Constitution requires.
In Liberty, Rene
No one actually reads the Constitution anyway. They just tell you what it says.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
No, you have them read the document and form their own opinion based on that
When parents lead their children to believing something, we have the delusional masses on both the left and right who vote without question for the Republicans or Democrats without thinking about what they stand for just because their parents voted that way and when you have that, democracy doesn't work.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Mark Twain really pisses people off... If he were pissing people off for something other than the use of the word "nigger" then I think he would be proud. I wonder what he would have to say about the uproar over things like this...
no, actually, when i say it I mean that no one section should hold primacy over the rest. So for example, Bush had legitimate Article II power to run the military and defend the country but he overreached when he claimed it enabled him to annul Habeas and the 4th amendment. See how that works there? Each part of the constitution is as important as each other part.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
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?!?!?!
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
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.
There is room for legitimate disagreement over the definition of 'arms'. To wit: does it include machine guns? Flamethrowers? SAMs? Nukes? Why or why not?
A political right means that anybody is automatically WRONG to interfere with you when you do it. By 'wrong' I mean: it would create an environment unsuitable for creatures with our nature and requirements. For example, it is wrong to ban books, because our nature as rational sovereigns is to pursue truth independently and then build consensus by persuasion.
Regarding the RKBA, it is automatically wrong for someone to take away a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you. Today that amounts to handguns, shotguns, etc.; tomorrow it will mean stun-phasers, sleep rays, whatever. It does not and will not include nukes (etc.) because it is the state's prerogative to protect you in those contexts... hence, nukes are not included in the RKBA. In other words, it is not automatically wrong for somebody to say you can't have a nuke.
That said, I'm a rabid gun owner, CCL, second-amendment advocate, and so forth. But I think we do ourselves a disservice when we insist that the RKBA is infinite, or without context.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
3/5th was done specifically for a noble cause by the Northern States to combat the Southern States' push for protection of the 'peculiar institution', i.e. the Slavery. Basically the constitution writers would fear that the slave owners would use every slave they own to cast a full vote, according to the wishes of that slave-owner. So the compromise was made to count it as just above half vote (60%), so that it would take five slaves to equal three votes. The writers of the constitution wanted to put the breaks on the slavery (such as Thomas Jefferson, for example), but it met with a lot of opposition, and the convention was in jeopardy. This was the only way to create this compromise for the constitution to be ratified and the United States of America to come to existence.
meaning they would prefer to repeal the amendment that enabled it. given the big brother thing you might want to start considering that reducing federal cognizance of individuals might be for the best.
or put another way, i don't hold the idiotic statements of some members of the left against the left's valid arguments. e.g. those claiming that the healthcare bill wasn't a giant gift to the very corporations that the left blame (and to a large extent justifiably) for the problems in our system. the honest people on the left acknowledge that the Democrat party got subverted by the very special interests Obama claimed he would not allow to dictate policy when he was campaigning.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Because it doesn't say that a well regulated militia is not to be infringed. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a militia is required.
Lincoln was only bent on hurting the south, not helping the slaves -- read his own words about it.
I have, and your interpration is not only wrong, but bizarrely so. Lincoln's overriding concern was holding the Union together, and he had no desire to hurt the South; if anything, he wanted to bring the war to an end much more quickly and humanely than most of his political allies in the North did. His personal distaste for slavery did harden into political policy as the war progressed, and the Emancipation Proclamation was a recognition that the contination of slavery was inextricably linked to the survival of the Confederacy. In 1861, he was naive enough to think that the war might be settled quickly and the nation restored to its antebellum state. By late 1862, he knew better.
I have also read the words of the agitators for secession and the leaders of the Confederacy, and it is overwhelmingly clear that the only states' right which was sufficient to inspire sesession in its defense was this: the "right" to make and enforce laws holding human beings as slaves. Without the fear of abolition, no other cause would have split the Union; with that fear, nothing could hold it together. Modern Southern Confederate apologists who frantically try to find something -- anything! -- other than slavery to justify secession are denying their own ancestors' words.
You know, I understand the desire to make one's ancestors out to be more noble and heroic than they really were. Practically everyone does it to some degree or another. But it can blind us to the reality of the past. Half my family is from the Southern US, and the other half is Russian. I can admire the courage many of my ancestors displayed in their struggles, and even sympathize with their ideals to a degree ... but I never forget what both the CSA and the USSR actually were.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
except that there are plenty of laws abridging the right to free speech. some are not trivial like the "fire in a crowded theater" laws.
and you conveniently ignore what militia meant when the document was written. militia was you, me, and everyone with a torch, pitchfork, or flintlock. since that part hasn't been amended since then, the meaning of the words at the time it was written should prevail and indeed has prevailed. or are you arguing against private ownership of firearms at the time of the revolution too? do you think we ought to return ourselves to British rule?
See the part of the Declaration of Independence:
Clearly we have a functional tradition of armed rebellion when appropriate. what ethical grounds do you claim to remove the ability to do so? are you so naive as to think that our current (not Obama, think a bit more medium term, please) government won't eventually slide into tyranny and need overthrown?
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Oh I'm sure it's a mistake. Somebody probably said 'We should put these warnings on anything in our Historical section since they may use racist terms and such'. I'm sure they never even realized that it would include the constitution and such.
It's quite simple and progressive moonbats seem to lose reading comprehension when reading the 2nd amendment. Now that the reciprocal insults are out of the way, lets parse:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State - this means that in order for a country to exist it needs an army to defend itself, yes?
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed - this means that the rights of the citizens to keep weapons shall not be interfered with by the government. so far, so good?
The context: The founders and the people of the colonies had just fought a war with Britain for freedom, and they clearly understood, better than any of us today apparently, that governments have a tendency to become self serving and oppressive. see the collected works of Thomas Jefferson, et.al for more details. If you read the other writings of the founders from that time period, you will understand that the point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that the people retain at least some ability to defend themselves from the militia of the oppressive government.
That's the context of it. Or perhaps you think those hack framers just fucked up the wording? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
So if the fact of regular citizens owning guns no longer has a bearing on the militia, does that mean the right to bear arms can be infringed? In other words, does the right to bear arms hinge on it being a requirement for a well-regulated militia, or not? It's complicated stuff.
Usually, the start of a sentence has something to do with its ending, so it's natural that people would think there is some connection between a "well-regulated militia" and the "right to bear arms".
I find it ironic that the same people who complain about a lack of strict constitutionalism in the judiciary complain vehemently when historians suggest that the correct historical interpretation doesn't mean that you get to have a nice little weapons cache in your basement.
Ah, keep banging that partisan drum.
Too bad anyone who understands US political history understands that the Democratic Party of Jackson's time is irrelevant to the Democratic party of today -- and if anything, is equivalent to the Republican Party of today.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
How the militia should be regulated has no bearing on the right of the people, right? It doesn't say anything about the right of the militia.
As for what constitutes Arms, well, that term hasn't changed much, it still means weapons. As where they have the right to keep and bear them, well, if the people have the right to keep and bear arms, (except in certain places), that (except in certain places) part would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, right? The language is pretty clear on infringement, is it not?
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
A well regulated militia is necessary. The Right shall not be infringed. A statement of fact, and a requirement.
It's amazing how non-vague the constitution is until you start trying to interpret in a way that limits freedom.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
The constitution is absolutely a living document. and the way to make edits is: Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal.
Before calling people idiots and morons perhaps you should take a basic civics class to learn a little bit about what the fuck you're talking about. You're the one that sounds like an ignorant moron at this point.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Conservative sensationalism at its finest! This is a boiler-plate disclaimer that the publisher automatically attaches to its publications, probably to appease their legal staff. At no point in the article does Fox News actually cite a legitimate source of protest, other than Amazon.com customer reviews. "Under fire" !? Only by Fox News and the far-right zombies that blindly peddle Fox News' stories and swallow them as fact. This is poorly written drivel based on the insignificant ramblings of Internet nobodies like us. I hope the /. crowd has enough sense to read this article carefully and take note of its illegitimacy and its role as right-wing propaganda.
I'm not an expert, but I play one on slashdot.
You also should be careful not to impose a modern definition of a word when the actual definition at the time was COMPLETELY different.
A clock should be "well regulated", but that has nothing to do with laws or statutes or rules.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
=======
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
So if the fact of regular citizens owning guns no longer has a bearing on the militia, does that mean the right to bear arms can be infringed? In other words, does the right to bear arms hinge on it being a requirement for a well-regulated militia, or not? It's complicated stuff.
It's only complicated when you argue from the position of trying to limit freedoms.
First, I don't agree with your first point, but that's irrelevant. It can't be infringed until you eliminate that statement from the Constitution, otherwise it makes the entire document worthless.
If you can just claim that 'Oh that doesn't matter in today's society' and then ignore it, what's the point? If it doesn't matter, then change the Constitution.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
umm... the "conservatives" played plenty fast and loose with the constitution over the past decade. See for reference the Bush administration, specifically John Yoo's memos "justifying" torture, denial of Habeas, warantless domestic wiretapping, etc.
Oh, you meant the paleo-conservatives. my bad. but no one listens to them anymore.
so to recap:
the left thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.
the right thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Anything that does not make its primary purpose the empowerment and restitution of oppressed peoples is inherently racist, classist and reactionary.
You don't have the freedom to own a modern gun. The Constitution referred only to flintlocks which fired balls down a smoothbore barrel.
Really? Maybe you could point out the part that talks about flintlocks. I can't seem to find it.
By your logic, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to computers and ball-point pens.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
The South started an armed rebellion to preserve slavery. The North didn't start the war, and I really don't care what reasons you think the North had for responding with force to the Southern rebellion. The South started the war, and they started it to preserve slavery.
The country was already in the slow process of abolishing slavery when the South rebelled. When Lincoln was elected there was no doubt in anyone's mind the direction the country was going. Slavery would end. The South's war of aggression just hurried the process along.
... 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
Before allowing them to read the Constitution? Really?
but what is well regulated?
Volunteers that just show up when it's time to fight? do they get training? can a 4 year old join up?
Like the poster said:
" it doesn't mention how the militia should be regulated,"
and
"what constitutes arms"
He did not argue with the clarity of the right shall not be infringed.
If logical fallacies and misdirection is all you have. then you don't really know what you are talking about.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Really? So then I have a right to have a 100 kiloton nuke in my back yard and the police can't stop me - it says so right here in this here Bill of Rights! I have the right to keep and bear nuclear arms! Yahoo!
Oh, and if you say "well, the Founders didn't know about nukes, so the reference to "arms" in the Bill of Rights doesn't include nuclear arms," all I have to do is point out to you that the Founders didn't know anything about M-16s and other automatic weapons, either.
So you see, it's really a hell of a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be. For instance, does the right to free speech in the First Amendment give me the right to tell the whole world that [username] committed some unspeakable act? Actually, no, it doesn't - because that would be slander (or libel), assuming that 1. it was false, 2. I knew it was false and didn't bother to check into it, 3. the claim was just credible enough that it might be believed by some number of people, and 4. their belief of that false statement cause [username] harm.
Does it mean that the Congress is prohibited from making a law abridging my speech, but the president can abridge my speech at a whim by means of an executive order?
Natural languages are by their very natures ambiguous - and they depend upon that ambiguity or they wouldn't work (you can't describe a new phenomenon without at least defining its new name using metaphor). Whether fortunately or unfortunately, that very ambiguity makes it impossible to write truly unambiguous law. We have evidence from the ways in which e.g. the Bill of Rights changed that at least Madison was deliberately going for language that could be reinterpreted to widen people's rights.
The Supremacy Clause applies to: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ..."
Any federal law that is made NOT in pursuance of the Constitution is therefore also not covered by the Supremacy Clause. For example, current prohibition laws against drugs are NOT authorized by the Constitution (unlike alcohol prohibition was for a brief time back in the 1920s) and therefore the drug war is based on laws made outside of the constitutionally-delegated authority of the Congress. Therefore federal drug laws are not protected by the Supremacy clause. So if a state decided to assert 9th/10th Amendment rights with respect to the federal drug war, it would be completely within its rights to do so.
Also bear in mind that the federal government was CREATED BY the states, in furtherance of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which is the moral basis for American government and which the Constitution theoretically is designed to implement in law. As the declaration states, we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights, the purpose of government being to secure those Rights, and when any government becomes destructive of those Rights, it is the DUTY of the people to alter or abolish it.
It's not the weapons themselves that should be feared, but the drooling morons allowed to wield them.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.