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.'"
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?
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.
No, the difference is: there's a process to change the Constitution if you think it's outdated.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.
So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"?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constitution are great guiding points, with the exception of the amendment allowing the income tax, and the (thankfully repealed) amendment allowing the prohibition of alcohol.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.
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!
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
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
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.
Exactly. Like this guy.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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
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.
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!