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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[tverbeek]

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

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!

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?

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.)

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.

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: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: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: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: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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

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.