Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Publishing Company Puts Warning Label on Constitution

Posted by samzenpus on from the inappropriate-founding-fathers dept.

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.'"

42 of 676 comments (clear)

  1. Copyright by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Copyright by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No way. It would be about 20 times longer. See today, they hand it off to interns to write. The goal is to write everything so thick and deep, that NOBODY could credibly claim to have read it.

      Now, maybe you mean "it would mean less and contain less protections". Thats absolutely true. As far as I can tell, the people in charge today would junk the entire bill of rights, from freedom of the press and right to bear arms, all the way down through.

      I would be absolutely shocked if you retained any rights other than to vote in the already rigged voting system, and would probably gain a few pointless ones like an inalienable right to pay taxes.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Copyright by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, but Corporations are more equal than others. That products are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Patentability, Copyright and the pursuit of Profit. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the payment of the governing. That whenever any Form of Behavior becomes destructive to the maximization of profits, it is the Right of the Corporate to alter or to abolish it.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    3. Re:Copyright by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ***Now, maybe you mean "it would mean less and contain less protections".***

      Ahem ... if you recall, the original version did not in fact include what we now regard as basic protections (unless of course if you are carted off to the US's appalling overseas prisons). The first 10 ammendments -- the Bill of Rights -- was in draft before the constitution was approved, and it probably couldn't have been approved without a tacit agreement that the ammendments would be presented as soon as the details of wording and content could be worked out. Actually the states mostly had and have rights enumerated in their constitutions. No one really anticipated that federal power would supercede those rights in many cases.

      ====

      Other than that, you're right, a modern version of the Constitution would probably run to 3000 pages and include large chunks of material proposed by lobbiests that no one actually read prior to approval.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    4. Re:Copyright by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a bit puzzled as to why you'd be against government schools (clearly, something nearly demanded by the grant of authority to Congress for "promoting the general welfare").

      I love how "promote the general welfare" is interpreted as a free pass for the federal government to expand its powers for anything that provides any benefit to a significant number of people. It strikes me that, at a minimum, an analysis should be done as to whether the federal government's providing of a non-essential given service/product (be it interstate roads, education, healthcare, internet access, or a free pony) contributes more to the general welfare than if it just let its citizens keep their money and choose the product/service for themselves. It seems that Aldous Huxley's world (or John Galt's) can be achieved through a continuous series of efforts to "promote the general welfare".

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    5. Re:Copyright by Altrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure letting the citizens keep their money is somewhere around the opposite of promoting the general welfare -- its promoting the welfare only of those who have money to keep. Now in a society where everyone has relatively equal amounts of money, this could be construed as the "general welfare", but I've yet to see any indication that such a society is even possible, never mind existing.

      I'm also a little hazy on what you'd consider an "essential service" if health care is among the explicit list of what you consider non-essential. I can't think of anything less beneficial to the general welfare than letting people suffer or die when they could be saved because they don't happen to fall into the upper percentage of folk who can afford a hospital bed.

      Things like roads, power and telephone lines, etc.. there's been a huge push over the past two decades to "privatize" these things for the "good" of the people. Basically what this amounts to is trading off government oversight (generally considered bad but necessary) with a monopoly power and _NO_ oversight (ALWAYS considered bad). Its one thing to spout rhetoric about the potential for competition, its quite another for any competitor to come up with several billion dollars to string their own lines (never mind the legal battles over right-of-ways and whatever else that will take time and money.. which the incumbent company will fight tooth and nail to stop on top of all the other hurdles).

      Any utility or service that is effectively impossible to duplicate (economically or politically) should always remain in the hands of the government -- at least the people will have theoretical oversight. Of course, the /maintenance/ of such utilities can be contracted out, but the utilities themselves should remain public (and for things like telephone lines, the service itself can even be privatized providing the lines -- the part that can't be practically duplicated in any practical sense -- are maintained publicly.)

      It is of course definitely worth arguing which level of government should maintain these things (in the sense of intrastate versus interstate splits.. but it could be broken down further to intra-city vs inter-city, intra-community vs inter-community.. and so on down until you end up with the home owner being responsible for the final leg between his house and the edge of his property if you really want to go that far.. think of a driveway that connects to the street). But its ridiculous to argue that an uncontrolled monopoly power over a shared utility is ever better than government oversight -- its only better for the CEOs and shareholders of the monopolistic company. Maintaining balance over shared resources is the reason governments exist!

  2. Warning by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. A Better Target by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:A Better Target by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the difference is: there's a process to change the Constitution if you think it's outdated. The process is not "just ignore what you have sworn to uphold and defend". It requires a supermajority for a reason.

      Without constitutional fundamentalism we have raw democracy: the tyranny of the majority writ large. It's not a good thing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:A Better Target by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"? Is it that it protects the rights of citizens and requires a warrant for you to be searched according to it? Or is it that you don't like freedom of speech? Or is it that you don't believe we should have the right to legally bear arms to defend ourselves against criminals or, should it become a form of tyranny, the government? Or is it that you don't believe in the right to a trial by jury?

      All of the things in the constitution are great guiding points, with the exception of the amendment allowing the income tax, and the (thankfully repealed) amendment allowing the prohibition of alcohol.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:A Better Target by conspirator57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pol pot, Mao, and Stalin certainly didn't need any stinkin' bible to commit genocide. Plain human greed and sociopathy work just fine on their own. One might even reasonably think that hatred of religion qua religion is a red herring.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    4. Re:A Better Target by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>The Constitution does discuss slavery as if it were a reasonable institution

      Woah, hold on there. The Southern delegates wanted the slaves counted as full persons, even though they were not treated as persons. The Northern delegates said the southern delegates were being hypocritical, treating their slaves as both property and persons at the same. The Abolitionists and the Plantationists were butting heads and threatening to tear apart this just-born country.

      The Constitution does Not treat slavery as reasonable. It treats it as Unreasonable which is why there's the illogic of counting slaves as 3/5 people. Rather than create a civil war in 1786, a compromise was reached. Else there'd be no United States today.

      I think the Founders made the wise decision of letting the U.S. exist, and fix the imperfections later. Which is what we eventually did

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:A Better Target by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real point is that there are those who think if it isn't mentioned in the constitution it isn't allowed (usually comes up with regard to drunk driving not being illegal, for some reason). Odd thing is the constitution doesn't say anything about cars at all - or airports, or television, or intarwebs...

      Because it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it's usually left up to the States (at least that's the way it's supposed to work) -- which is why, using your example. driving is usually considered a privilege which can be revoked. I find it "odd" that someone would use the Constitution in an argument to prove driving drunk *IS* legal. You *MIGHT* make the argument that it's *Constitutional* in that it isn't violating the Constitution.

      The bit about a "Well regulated militia", for one. Do you really think them thar injuns are going to attack?

      On that, I would suggest reading up on what our Founder's meant. My favorite is Richard Henry Lee (Virginia): "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

      I'd suggest also reading Federalist 184-188.

      Or Patrick Henry (another Virginian): "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

      Note: I do not own a gun. I do not WANT to own a gun. I do not like guns *OR* their intended purpose. I, however, cannot argue against a reasonable argument (especially on Constitutional grounds) that personal possession of a gun is a *RIGHT*. It is a right I chose not to exercise.

    6. Re:A Better Target by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the US was a pure democracy, the Civil Rights movement would have been stopped in its tracks, just as an example. Pure democracy leads to Populism, which leads to Fascism. This is the whole reason why the US was never setup as a Democracy, and instead as a Democratic Republic.

      IMO, they shouldn't have changed the way US Senators were elected, which is now less of a republican style system and more of a democracy. Then again, I'm pretty big on the individual States having most of the power and the Federal government ONLY doing the things that the States can't do, like defense, treaties, regulate interstate commerce, you know, the stuff in the actual Constitution that it is only supposed to be doing.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  4. So.... what's the outrage again? by jdgeorge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:So.... what's the outrage again? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, for one thing, it has been properly amended to cover those situations. Unlike much stuff from FDR onward, which was just magically assumed to fall under the propriety of the government's reach without amendment. If society changes, you change the Constitution, which has a built-in, slow, deliberative, supermajority process. If it's that good an idea, most should want it, and still want it 5 or 10 years down the road. If that is not the case, you have no business passing such laws in the first place.

      If anything, there should be a warning on that warning. "The above warning is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as if it were written back then. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how memes espoused by the power hungry have bypassed the amendment process by declarative fiat."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:So.... what's the outrage again? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because when you take something in "historical context" you can easily reason away all of the rights it gave us. For example:

      In the 1700s, there were no terrorists flying planes into buildings. Therefore, your right to not be searched unreasonably needs to be removed because if the founding fathers had this "threat" they would have taken it into consideration.

      In the 1700s, there were no computers, so this means that your rights don't extend to your own computer when it comes to being searched.

      In the 1700s, there was no internet, so this means that internet is not covered under free speech, petition or assembly.

      Putting something into "historical context" usually almost always gives someone less rights than guaranteed by law.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:So.... what's the outrage again? by jdgeorge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The overt argument that you should NOT consider historical context when reading the constitution (which appears to be what you're saying) doesn't follow.

      It is true that people can draw ridiculous conclusions of relevance or irrelevance based on historical context, but they can draw equally ridiculous conclusions without any historical context.

    4. Re:So.... what's the outrage again? by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it's good for rousing the idiot reactionaries. Why does Fox News publish any story (not counting the celebrity gossip pieces)?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  5. Re:Teabaggers by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a failed troll...since both of those were fixed with Amendments. That's how it's done, you know...

  6. "Copyright 2007" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  7. This is his standard disclaimer guys by neltana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. well, it is true. by retchdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ``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
    1. Re:well, it is true. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that we've already amended the Constitution 27 times suggests fairly strongly that the disclaimer is true as stated.

      10 of which were immediately passed and almost understood to be part of the original document. The passing and the repeal of prohibition are two other amendments that don't really seem to fall into the 'revision' category.

      Actually there was one thing I liked about the prohibition amendment. It demonstrated that there was a time when the Federal Government actually followed the Constitution and didn't claim the Commerce Clause gave it ultimate power over everything.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  9. Re:Teabaggers by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So was income tax, but I've heard quite a few Tea Party folks claiming it's unconstitutional.

  10. Yes by Nuskrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

  11. Re:Warning Labels OK for Evolution, not for Slaver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Worrying trend by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  13. Warning Unnecessary by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Warning Unnecessary by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Like this guy.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  14. Re:Interpret it correctly by conspirator57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  15. Re:Interpret it correctly by 2names · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
  16. Re:Interpret it correctly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Interpret it correctly by inviolet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

    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
  18. Re:Interpret it correctly by fotbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:Interpret it correctly by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  20. Re:Interpret it correctly by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  21. Re:Interpret it correctly by Zondar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  22. Re:Interpret it correctly by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  23. Re:Interpret it correctly by Scutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?"
  24. Permission by Kenoli · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... 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?

  25. Supremacy clause is not a blank check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.