RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:**!"
Heh! Doh - how big is he?
Tell him it's not my fault, and that you made ME wanna talk about this! Honest. Guv.
He's all bark, no bite. ;D
Well I think that page gives a nice over view. The issue with the constitution is it stated WHO citizens were, and what rights those specific citizens had. The constitution was flawed. It ignored slaves (yes, they were considered property) and in other respects it ignored women. Women were citizens although they too were property. Women were property much longer than black males were by the way in America.
I think you're getting hung up on the United States Constitution. This new society you and I would build would not be modeled after a United States constitution, rather it would be created to make a pact between the new citizens of the new society and the government they were forming.
This is how I kind of undertstood it. The constituation didn't matter to the slaves they weren't truly citizens. They were more like 'property'. Kinda like my Sister's dog has rights - but not the same rights as 'citizens'...
That - to me - was the reason why it didn't even seem to matter what was written in the constitution. As long as you say 'the constitution doesn't actually apply to "these people"', then what does it matter what's written in there, in relation to them?
Well. I would say Ren that in a new society if it matters that all people are given equal rights and citizenship that NEEDS to be spelled out in the constitution. I'm not saying a constitution rights wrongs and liberates those that have no liberty. What I am saying about a constitution is that it spells out precisely WHO has liberty. If the citizens (and we're assuming this is a new Libertarian state) are true to their ideals then their constitution will reflect their Libertarian philosophy by outlining that all people regardless of creed, race, or gender are citizens with equal rights under this new contract.
The thing that most worries me about a consitutution where none of it can be taken back is that I see that concept as a contridiction to Libertarianism.
Well I can tell you that I vote. ;) Many of my female ancestors could not. My daughter's best friend is African American and her parents own property and have the same benefits of citizenship that my husband and I enjoy. The American constitution can be changed.
I'm sure I won't find much (if anything) in the U.S. consitutation that I'd take real issue with. But the fact is that anything can be interpereted all kinds of ways - depending on doing the reading. And having a bunch of rules that are now set in stone, where the democratically elected goverments can no longer 'change their minds' about any of the 'old rules' seems dangerous to me - in the long run.
Well I think you may have thought I was praising the US constitution and suggesting that as a model. I was not. Look here at what Paine said about the origins of government. This actually makes quite a bit of sense to me and is easy to digest.
http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/commonsense/sense2.htmIn order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supercede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.
But as the Colony encreases, the public concerns will encrease likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue encreasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right.
...to me, it's kind of like the example I used in that MA&D board speal I linked you to - with the guy who wants me to lock him in a cell, throw away the key and never return to check on him again. I'd follow the first request, but not the second two. (Well, I would consider throwing away the key if I knew it could be replaced). I wouldn't let this guy get into a position where he couldn't change his mind later. Because that is an attack on Liberty. And I see the same danger in an unalterable consitution - where society can draw itself into a rule, and then never be able to get themselves out of it again.
Absolutely! I agree!! If you want a fluid constitution in this new society CREATE one! :D
Here's about the best example I can think of - the ERA. It never went though, but at one time it would be fair to say that it was certainly on the cards at one time. Now, some of the 'extreme' possibilities bought up in relation to the ERA were things like seperate toilet areas becoming illegal. Or drafting women in times of war as a legal nessesity. etc. etc.
Now - I'm not convinced all those extreme situations would have come about - but imagine if the ERA had been introduced, and then all these extreme situations DID come about. And everybody in the country suddently decided 'Ahh man - you know, that ERA was a big mistake. We shouldn't have done it..'
...what then? Tough luck? It literally doesn't matter how many people think the Amendment was a mistake - too bad? It's gotta stay?
No the constitution can be amended. For instance ever know that there was an amendment prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol in America? There was! Guess what? This amendment was no longer applicable when a later amendment reversed the prior one. If you want your constitution to be fluid make it so. Don't put road blocks into your constitution.
Well, not only would I argue that that would be against Libertarianism, it also just plain wouldn't work. SOmehow, you'd get round it. It would just be interpereted in whatever way got the result most people wanted - I'd imagine.
In other words - at the end of the day - democracy would win, over some rule written on a piece of paper that no-one believed in anymore. (I don't mean the idea of the consittuation, I mean the specific amendement that was no longer agreed with).
Well.. I don't know. I think we think of democracy and contracts in different ways. I see a constitution as necessary as protecting everyone from the democracy! For instance the constitution ensures that the kids I teach (children with disabilities) have a free and appropriate education. Most Americans don't support or care for special education. They want to slash that program, even fellow teachers often do not appreciate children with special needs in our school. The United States constitution is my ally in assuring that these children (in the minority) can still succeed and have the same right to an education as those in the majority that wish they were not there.
With all that said, I DO understand the point that the majority can be allowed to have unjust dominion over the minority without a consitution.
Well even WITH a constitution a majority will try to suppress the minority. I just view a constitution as essential in outlining that all citizens have certain rights and that the majority can not just do as they will.
I acccept that, and I also want to combat that. But I'd argue that having a constitution doesn't stop the majority having unjust dominion over the minority.
It could be seen with slavery back then.
Oh right! LOL See above. I was replying and didn't see you had said that.
And it can be seen in the denial of homosexual rights right now. The consitution isn't stopping that injustice either. And yet countries like Canada and the UK have already introduced same sex marriages / civil unions - nationwide. From where I'm standing, we would appear to be AHEAD on that game in that respect... And this is with the UK having no fixed consitution which is 'forcing' us to secure these rights...
Ahh.. but at some point it could.
You know. You're looking at your new society and we're brainstorming. I'm not suggesting an AMERICAN constitution. No. Absolutely not.
I was thinking about the UK constitution. It is very fluid but it has eons of historical relevancy and a history steeped in tradition. A new society needs to have a formal contract (I believe) to ensure that they start new case law, new precedents, and create a tradition. I just don't see a new society coming into being and not having some sort of understanding as to what they are coming together to form. In essence, it just makes it easier to refer back to.
My argument is that consitutions don't secure rights. People do. People have to look around them and realise that rights have to be secured - for all people. Not just the majority, or people like 'them'.
I AGREE! People secure rights! I just think having those rights spelled out doesn't hurt. Yanno?