Slashdot Mirror
Interpreting the Constitution In the Digital Era
oik writes "NPR's Fresh Air this week had an interesting interview with Jeffrey Rosen, one of the authors of Constitution 3.0 , which addresses a number of issues to do with interpreting the US Constitution in the face of new technologies (both present and future). Many of the topics which he touches on come up on Slashdot a lot (including the GPS tracking cases). It's well worth listening to the program (link in the main page), of which the linked article is just a summary."
No tyrant in history was ever able to grab such power and the effect over the 20th century has been absolutely devastating to the United States. Even today, with the increasing disintermediation (and consequent slow recovery of freedom) of information, you still have public opinion being molded by the likes of Jeffrey Rosen and NPR. Indeed, no candidate seeking public office at the Federal level has had a hope of winning that office without the support of the broadcast networks, whose unconstitutionality is so ignored by Jeffrey Rosen and NPR (for obvious reasons).
Seastead this.
When you can simply ignore it.
It's not as if there are any repercussions.
Deleted
While the political themes of Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy beginning with Red Mars have divided readers, I found the constitutional debates within to be fascinating. The settlers of Mars come together in a constitutional convention that takes new, present-day technology and ecological themes into account, and examine a far larger set of models of political organization than the American Founding Fathers knew about. Junking it all and starting from scratch seems like a wonderful opportunity. Ever since I read those books in the mid-1990s, I've felt sad that not only is American democracy co-opted by special interests and the inevitability of a stagnant two-party system, but even at best it would be limited to a late 18th-century worldview.
One thing I always found interesting about constitutional interpretation is that the same people who argue the 2nd amendment should only apply to muskets (on the basis that the writers of the constitution supposedly could not have imagined anyone ever designing what they all wanted... a gun that shoots faster and further), will turn right around and assert the first amendment has a wide reach with respect to electronic mass media. Electronic mass media... like that was easier for a colonist to see coming than a rifle upgrade.
All texts require interpretation. No human utterance is unambiguous. This has been understood for over a century now, since Saussure proposed l'arbitraire du signe. Science, bitches.
This is the real problem - 'interpreting' the Constitution.
There should be no such thing, no 'interpreting', because this is used to justify anything, any power grab, any expansion of gov't power, any kind of thing that gov't wants.
You know it's true, they interpret Bibles the way they want to fit in any new technological advancement and same becomes a problem with the Constitution. It's not supposed to be interpreted, it's supposed to be followed. It's the law.
It's not the Constitution that needs interpretation (and I am not saying the document is perfect, far from it, it is not making it explicit that it shouldn't be interpreted for example).
The law that applies to the private citizens is not interpreted - you kill somebody - there is no 'interpretation' of the law. The question is only of your guilt.
It should be same with the Constitution - gov't takes over some power, the question is only the amount of guilt that should be allocated, not whether it was permitted by the Constitution that this power was supposed to be taken over.
There is a larger question here as well - should gov't even be allowed to pass NEW laws at all? I don't think so.
If the physics laws were changing all the time (F=MA today, some time from today it's F=2MA, some time later it's F=A; E=MC2, E=MC, E=C, E=4C; Today Hydrogen has this mass, tomorrow it's half that.) There would be no stars, no planets, no life in that unstable system.
Same with society and economy and gov't. Gov't sets the basic laws and then society and economy work around those laws. Change the laws and economy/society now must change how it works to accommodate the change of laws. Do too much of this and enough times and you destroy the economy and society.
That's what you have now - destruction of economy and society by gov't.
This was caused by various loose 'interpretations' of the Constitution (at first), and now it's just blatant disregard to the Constitution, which is LAW that gov't is supposed to abide by.
This is your fundamental problem.
You can't handle the truth.
I'll make it easy. Stick with the traditional interpretation and follow it like plain language. If you treat the Constitution as a list of government permissions and not a set of restrictions, and ditch the attempts to interpret the enumerated rights as somehow limiting anything not mentioned...
The Constitution is VERY easy to interpret when you are trying to argue on the behalf of freedom. The only time you need a crack lawyer to argue an interpretation is when you are trying to present an interpretation that seeks to limit freedom.
Some argue that such a simple approach is flawed as it would prevent the government from performing functions that we want them to do such as the EPA, Dept of Ed., etc. That is not true because for anything so important and universal that it requires the federal government, then we need to go through the effort to amend the constitution to grant the government the authority to do that. If it really is that important then passing the amendment will happen. If it doesnt pass that means you either were proposing something that more people than you didn't want, or you need to spend more time convincing people that they want the government to do what you say they should do.
Imagine you hire someone to repair a wall in your house. While he is working he sees you have a broken window and decides that you would be better off and fixes the window of his own volition. What he didn't know is that you were going to build an addition and the window was being removed anyway.
The repairman exceeded his authority and even though he was doing something 'good', but the right way to do it would be to ask you to amend his contract to grant him the authority to fix the window in addition to the wall.
Sure, its harder, but hat process ensures that you have to 'opt in' to increased government rather than the easier method that requires us to actively 'opt out' by continually passing new 'protections' each time the government figures a way around the old protections.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
You can bet the Second Amendment would be gone. That's the lynchpin keeping all the other ones in place. On another note, the constitution doesn't need to be recreated. The founders created a clear method for amending it, which has happened over two dozen times now.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
What part of "papers and effects" don't they understand?
Your computer (and phone) is as much your "papers" as the media is a "press".
What right did they get to GPS-track you? Isn't your car an "effect"? Even if not, it still is your property. So where did the government get the right to use your property without due process of law (5th amendment)?
Where'd the government get the right to confiscate servers? Domain names? Where's the due process of law?
The constitutional view is that the government only has such powers as have specifically been given to it. The state's view is that they have plenary (unlimited) power until stopped by a greater power.
A Constitution 3.0 would not be needed if there were a proper perspective on the existing constitution.
Read the link for the Federalist Papers, the Antifederalist Papers, and more.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
The loss of government funding wouldn't dramatically affect NPR itself (about 7% comes from "grants and contributions"). The largest single source (34%) of their funding comes from station programming fees.
However, it would affect many of the local public radio stations that re-broadcast NPR (and which, in turn, pay NPR for programming fees). According to this site, 16.4% of the average public radio station's funding comes from government funding and grants from the Corporation from Public Broadcasting. About 14.3% of a public radio station's funding comes from universities, which frequently get income from the feds.
Without funding from the government, many public radio stations would have insufficient funds to continue to operate and would need to close down. NPR would likely be able to continue without much trouble, but local radio stations that actually provide services to their local community would be shut down.
Many of the pledge weeks are for the local stations to raise funding, not for NPR itself (though the NPR radio staff often record "Give $local_station_name money!" ads for the stations).