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."

Comments

The real issue

[Baldrson]

If you are really interested in issues of Constitutionality and electronic technology, the issue most relevant to the original intent of the US Constitution was the establishment of de facto censorship of free speech created by the broadcast networks under the licensing authority of the Federal government. The broadcast licenses thereby issued allows public discourse to be limited to the range of issues and opinion determined by central authorities far from the citizens they were to "inform".

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).

Re:The real issue

[Xanny]

The power of media is just part of a recurring theme of politicians just ignoring the constitution and putting Supreme Court judges in place to keep whatever backwards legislation they pass as law.

If all three branches of government are controlled by private media dollars, there are no checks and balances left, and there is no way to enforce the constitution if all the branches are taken out of the picture like they are right now.

I mean that is the main reason for OWS, getting corporate influence out of government. The real solution is to really understand what the constitution was for - it was just a document to unify the states under a common base law. That was the reason for the 10th amendment. The states should be handling almost everything the fed is right now, and through financial mobility anyone disenfranchised with a given state could move to one that better suits their political ideology. The problem is that states have become irrelevant as amendments like direct voting of senators came about removing the states from the federal level.

It really is just a side effect of the top down politics when they should be bottom up - new ideas of political discourse should come from local attempts at new ideas and good ideas should build up across districts into state laws, and eventually if everyone starts doing the same thing it might become national law. The way it is now is just backwards

constitutional interpretation

[doug141]

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.

Papers and effects

[Compaqt]

What part of "papers and effects" don't they understand?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.