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.'"

Comments

Copyright

[TheKidWho]

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!

Re:Copyright

[Hatta]

If it was written today, it would be a lot shorter.

Re:Copyright

[TheCarp]

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

Re:Copyright

[IndustrialComplex]

If it was written today, it would be a lot shorter.

Not true, if I were to go by what people seem to think the role of government should be, it would be a HUGE document detailing every single thing that you are allowed to do, and there would be a LOT that you are allowed to do. Every freedom that you now enjoy would likely be included in the document.

And hopefully you understand why that would be a terrifying prospect.

Re:Copyright

[CharlyFoxtrot]

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.

Re:Copyright

[oldspewey]

plus there would be a couple thousand riders paperclipped to it

Re:Copyright

[heruvian]

Thats the declaration of independence.

Re:Copyright

[vtcodger]

***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.

Re:Copyright

[CharlyFoxtrot]

TFA said it was one of the documents a warning label was put on. Also not being american I'm more familiar with the declaration of independence than the constitution, which is quite boring (except for the part about people with bear arms, awesome.)

Re:Copyright

[BlackSnake112]

Well, one definition of a boat is a hole in the water that you throw your money into.

Re:Copyright

[dwiget001]

And ear marks to pay for adding turtle crossings to roads in Badlands, South Dakota.

Re:Copyright

[JesseMcDonald]

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:Copyright

[Kythe]

The Founders were pretty darned progressive in their day :) Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.

I'm glad you appreciate the simplicity, by the way. Conservatives have been trying to stuff the Constitution with a bunch of trivial laws (e.g. an amendment against flag-burning) for a while. Maybe your comment indicates they've finally seen the folly of this, and they'll join with progressives in recognizing the purpose of the Constitution for what it is: the basic, highest-level framework for the U.S.' system.

However, since you're such a defender of the Big C, 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").

Re:Copyright

[betterunixthanunix]

Which any citizen could create a copy of, if he wanted to, without fearing legal attacks. Thankfully, in the USA, government documents are (at least in theory) automatically in the public domain, so we still have that right, although apparently the same company from TFA did put a copyright notice on the constitution...

Re:Copyright

[osu-neko]

Indeed, the point of the 9th Amendment is to address the fears that by enumerating certain rights, it would be construed as excluding any rights not specifically mentioned. It's due to the 9th Amendment that a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution is unconstitutional. The Constitution itself specifically says just because something it not explicitly stated does not mean it is not protected.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[AK Marc]

No Progressive would ever be elected again, which is of course why they spent the last century on a project to push it down the memory hole.

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:Copyright

[CAIMLAS]

Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.

That's a little under-handed, don't you think? I see what you're doing here: trying to equate "Constitutionist" with "backwards/antiquated" in the same way the Tories were.

However, the comparison falls on its face when you consider that the GP and the founding fathers are ideological brothers, whereas King George and his attitude is much more akin to modern Progressives and the approach taken with the EU constitution.

Also, I resemble your comment: "folks like me" - my ancestors who lived in New York and Connecticut at the time of the Revolution and had tradecraft professions such as myself - were very much involved in the Revolution for the side of the Republic. They may not have been great orators or political theorists, but they had a lick of sense between their ears.

Please, kindly take your "general welfare" and shove it up your ass. Your invocation of that clause is illustrative of an inability to read: it's in the preamble, not the body, of the Constitution. This is typically called a "high level summary" of a document, demonstrating the intent of what follows. High school freshmen should typically understand this concept. (There's a general mention to the blessings of liberty - referring to God - in the preamble as well; does that not establish God as a fundamental component of our Government?)

The US Constitution covers the restrictions to government moreso than what the government can do.

Re:Copyright

[Arthur Grumbine]

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".

Re:Copyright

[dangitman]

... and include large chunks of material proposed by lobbiests...

So, how does this work grammatically? Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest?

Re:Copyright

[fyngyrz]

There's a general mention to the blessings of liberty - referring to God - in the preamble as well; does that not establish God as a fundamental component of our Government

No. These "blessings" are something we must secure for ourselves, just as it says. They are not a gift from anyone, real or imaginary. Notably, there is not even one mention of "God" in the constitution. They got it right. They left it up to the legislature to misinterpret and get it wrong, and oh, brother, have they ever.

Re:Copyright

[Altrag]

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!

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

I do not know why that other person's reply was modded down, because he/she was absolutely correct. Apparently the "supremacy clause" is not be as clear as you say, because it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

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

Re:Copyright

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

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.

an analysis should be done as to whether the federal government's providing of a non-essential given service/product...contributes more to the general welfare than if it just let its citizens keep their money and choose the product/service for themselves.

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.

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".

Hey, I wish our system of government could get us to something like Huxley's Island , but I don't think so. (Huxley did write more than one book, you know.)

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

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

Warning

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:WARNING

[$RANDOMLUSER]

WARNING: This book is allegory, any relationship to beings or places, real or imaginary is purely co-incidental.

Inb4...

[Taevin]

In before the trolls!

*reads article*

Oh...

A Better Target

[MightyMartian]

I think the Bible would be a better book to slap that kind of a warning on.

Re:A Better Target

[tao]

You mean like http://www.emailvirals.com/data/media/1/bible-warning-label.jpg ?

Re:A Better Target

[lgw]

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.

Re:A Better Target

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:A Better Target

[paulsnx2]

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:A Better Target

[thewiz]

How about slapping the same warning on all political commentary, books, papers, laws, bills, etc? At the beginning of political "news" shows?
Just because a document is hundreds of years old does NOT mean the truths and wisdom contained within are irrelevant due to the current point-of-view.

Re:A Better Target

[conspirator57]

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.

Re:A Better Target

[Pharmboy]

Ramen. I think you must take the Constitution quite literally, as the primary purpose of the document is to LIMIT GOVERNMENTAL POWERS. That is the point most people miss. The whole idea of the Amendments was to insure that the minority wasn't oppressed by the majority.

Re:A Better Target

[commodore64_love]

>>>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

Re:A Better Target

[Jhon]

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.

Re:A Better Target

[HeronBlademaster]

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:A Better Target

[Godai]

That's kind of an ironic statement frankly. Often I've noticed that mere suggestion that the Constitution has any kind of flaw or that the founders were not somehow perfect to cause an incredible number of people to take umbrage. Which very close to the effect you get when you suggest the Bible isn't literal or might need some historical context.

None of that is to say the Constitution isn't a powerful document or that its framers weren't some smart guys, but good lord, no one and nothing is perfect. As others have pointed out, Amendments are proof of that. They should even be proof that Amendments themselves aren't necessarily above reproach ;)

Re:A Better Target

[king neckbeard]

The constitution explicitly forbids slavery.

Re:A Better Target

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re:A Better Target

[snowgirl]

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.

What about the slavery stuff? That slaves were worth only 3/5ths of a person? That's apparently according to you a "great guiding point"?

And the 16th Amendment did not "allow the income tax", it just authorized Congress to collect "direct taxes" without it being apportioned among the several states. So, to clear it up: before the 16th amendment, there were income taxes. Before the 16th amendment, there could be property taxes, but those taxes would have had to have been collected apportioned among the states based on population. (So, people in California would have to pay a larger hypothetical Federal Property Tax than those in Wyoming... regardless of a Californian owning only a quarter acre, but a Wyoming resident owning 100 acres. The Californian would still pay more tax in this case.)

So.... what's the outrage again?

[jdgeorge]

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?

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[XPeter]

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.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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."

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[jdgeorge]

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.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be it

I think the word you were looking for was "albeit"

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[tverbeek]

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

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[clydemaxwell]

1) There is a strong implication that the Constitution as it stands today is wrong, and the connotation of the warning label is of an attempt to prevent people from placing faith in it as the guiding document of our society.
2) We have a good reason to feel strongly about any attempt to downplay the importance or viability of our constitution, especially given the numerous contemporary attacks on the rights and processes it outlines.
3) I personally see it as an attempt at brainwashing or propaganda, as in "dont let your kids grow up to believe in the constitution", with the flimsy argument that the passage of time alone has somehow marred it's efficacy or rationale.

Of course we want people to consider the historical context and think for themselves whether the constitution is a good document for America to continue to follow, as that's a question we must continually ask. But as there is no context for this, it is akin to someone saying "I believe in the constitution" being reminded that the constitution belongs in it's historical place. It raises the question: "what part are you saying you don't agree with?"

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I think you have it exactly backwards. A literal, context-free reading of the First Amendment says that since there's no printing press and involved in making an online post, Congress can make all the laws it wants barring the expression of opinions on the internet. Taking historical context into account, we recognize that websites are in fact "the press" just as much as newspapers are.

Re:Teabaggers

[dreamchaser]

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

Worrying trend

[Darkness404]

This is a very worrying trend, parents should not "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" because otherwise that leaves things into interpretation and prevents people from forming their own opinion.

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?

Re:Worrying trend

[Lunix Nutcase]

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!

Re:Worrying trend

[lgw]

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.

Re:Worrying trend

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Worrying trend

[swb]

Anything that does not make its primary purpose the empowerment and restitution of oppressed peoples is inherently racist, classist and reactionary.

Warning Labels OK for Evolution, not for Slavery?

[CheshireCatCO]

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.

"Copyright 2007"

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[e2d2]

Is there something wrong with the article? If not it's a valid point. Or are we only supposed to discuss things from 2010 appearing on Huffington Post?

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[Red Flayer]

And why is Slashdot acting as a frontman for FoxNews?

Pop quiz:

What tech/nerd site has an editor who is a Republican party official and is will soon be attending a Republican leadership conference?

Need a hint?

It's not reddit, digg, fark, or any other site that cannot be abbreviated as /.

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[Hurricane78]

Because not only statistics prove that the amount of facts on Fox News is negligible and every “story” from them is by definition designed for deliberate evil manipulation of the people, but also because they even admitted it themselves in front of a court.

It’s like a boy who cries wolf 99.9999% of the time, and you want us to trust him on the one time he is right. Well, you know how the story ends...

In keeping with tradition, really

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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:In keeping with tradition, really

[careysub]

...

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. 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:In keeping with tradition, really

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[JesseMcDonald]

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.

This is his standard disclaimer guys

[neltana]

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[Low Ranked Craig]

I would direct you to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which are part of the constitution and kindly ask that you STFU.

well, it is true.

[retchdog]

``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.

Re:well, it is true.

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:well, it is true.

[audubon]

I seem to recall W saying that it was just a "goddam piece of paper."

You seem to recall that, do you? I suggest you check your facts.

Re:"Political" correctness much?

[Cornwallis]

Nothing new. The same types of warnings are also being applied to the early episodes of Sesame Street.

Re:Teabaggers

[CheshireCatCO]

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

Yes

[Nuskrad]

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).

Re:Yes

[the linux geek]

It said nothing about black people. It referred to persons bound to labor, which SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH included a large number of white indentured servants (and IIRC some outright slaves.) Nice try though.

Re:Warning Labels OK for Evolution, not for Slaver

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[Compholio]

I would direct you to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which are part of the constitution and kindly ask that you STFU.

I would direct you to the 1st Amendment and kindly request that you not ask others to STFU ;)

Warning Unnecessary

[twoallbeefpatties]

No one actually reads the Constitution anyway. They just tell you what it says.

Re:Warning Unnecessary

[oldspewey]

Exactly. Like this guy.

Re:Warning Unnecessary

[ScrewMaster]

Can anyone still read it? Isn't it written in latin? Don't you have to pay someone to interpret it for you?

Nah ... I think you're referring to my condominium association's bylaws. Damned if I can figure them out.

Re:Oh noes! Teabaggers are outraged!

[jjoelc]

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...

Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Interpret it correctly

[conspirator57]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[2names]

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?!?!?!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Minwee]

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

The part where the people are tearing the arms off of bears.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[inviolet]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fotbr]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[jdgeorge]

How dare you answer that question in concise, direct, thoughtful, and non-inflammatory terms! Gah!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Kijori]

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

[conspirator57]

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:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

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?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[smooth wombat]

The problem is, there's a misprint in the wording. It's not bear arms, it's bare arms. Everyone has the right to bare arms.

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

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

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?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Low Ranked Craig]

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

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Tarsir]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[raddan]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[lupis42]

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?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Zondar]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Captain Splendid]

As for what constitutes Arms, well, that term hasn't changed much, it still means weapons.

No it doesn't. Try buying an RPG, or a tank, or a nuke. Let me know how that works out for you.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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:Interpret it correctly

[Scutter]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[VirginMary]

By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Ranten_N_Raven]

I believe the founded /did/ expect us to be able to own and operate cannons, for example... but, I could always be wrong.

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:Interpret it correctly

[lupis42]

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

[geekoid]

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!

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

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't know, Mr./Mrs. AC, who taught you about the Constitution, but your understanding of it is a bit off. It needs to be read in the context in which it was written:

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.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Jedi Alec]

It's not the weapons themselves that should be feared, but the drooling morons allowed to wield them.

Re:sound and fury, anyone?

[king neckbeard]

The 3/5 compromise was for voting purposes, but it has been changed with the 14th amendment, which should be included in any publication of the constitution, along with the other amendments.

Re:Teabaggers

[AhabTheArab]

Exactly his point. The teabaggers

OK, stop there. You know damn well they're not called the "teabaggers". What is up with people calling them that? Are they trying to be funny? trying to sound smart? Grow the fuck up.

Re:Teabaggers

[ajlitt]

I would direct you to the 1st Amendment which grants the GP the right to kindly ask others to STFU and gives you the right to kindly request that the GP not ask others to STFU ;)

Disclaimer

[Drakkenmensch]

Slashdot is a product of its time and may not reflect the opinions of the modders who read your posts ten seconds from the moment they were written.

Re:Teabaggers

[Talderas]

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:Teabaggers

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I would direct you to the second amendment, which says if you all don't STFU, something bad is gonna happen.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[sageres]

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[conspirator57]

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Ultimately, for me, I trust a Justice like Hugo Black to do his job -- even if he is more extreme than my views -- more than I do someone like Justice John Paul Stevens, 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:3/5ths compromise

[commodore64_love]

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.

Weird Publisher

[Paradox !-)]

If you actually check out the link for the publisher they're mostly reprinting old "positive thinking" stuff. I smell publicity stunt. Then again, it could just be a debunked, false issue.

Re:"Political" correctness much?

[Urza9814]

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.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[Red Flayer]

If anybody should have been impeached, it should have been him - Andrew Jackson (D).

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[Low Ranked Craig]

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.

Stupid Fox News

[archmcd]

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.

Re:Teabaggers

[conspirator57]

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.

Re:Maybe it's just me but...

[mschuyler]

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.

No (was Re:Yes)

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Permission

[Kenoli]

... 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?

Re:It IS unconstitutional.

[CheshireCatCO]

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.

Supremacy clause is not a blank check

[Anonymous Coward]

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.