US Constitution in Peril?
 

Although I'm a Canadian living in Canada, I went through school, K to 12, in Queens, New York, from 1943 to 1955. Those were the days when they didn't care how you felt about it as long as you learned what they taught, and, as was typical in American schools at the time, Civics was a regular subject. We learned a lot about the US Constitution which is arguably one of the best in the free world and it's Bill of Rights is second to none in my view; documents to be proud of.

More recently, however, I'm seeing those magnificent ideals compromised as exemplified by these two articles:

In Arstechnica: Meet the senator blocking Big Content's Web censorship plan, a discussion about how "big content" is lobbying for a bill called "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" which would do dire damage to the Internet and allow a number of government interventions without any due process.

In Techdirt: Even Mainstream Reporters Now Mocking US Bogus 'Transparency' On Human Rights Issues Concerning Bradley Manning which discusses the growing concern about whether Bradley Manning is being tortured. And then, of course, there's Guantanamo.

Nova you are so correct. We Americans have allowed this to happen, but we are now studying the Constitution, and electing Representatives that understand and respect it. We sincerely hope we can turn it around.

I have been reading a book by Justice Joseph Story (supreme Court Justice 1811-1845) and an amazed at the misinformation taught in our colleges and schools...things I did not know.

The 1st (Free Speech), 4th (Unreasonable Search & Seizure), 5th (Due Process) and 8th (Cruel & Unusual Punishment) Amendments are a huge pain for governments, politicians and law enforcement agencies which is precisely why they're so important -- they are the keystone of democracy. The United States became what it is today because those rights were respected; people could say and print what they wanted about the governement, they could be secure in their homes and property, they were guaranteed a public hearing over any disagreement with their government, and when punishment was meted out, it was humane. Countries in the world where those principles are not guaranteed are not real democracies whether they have elections or not.

And the 2nd Amendment requires government to think twice before abusing the others too badly.

Although I come from a family of hunters and skeet/trap shooters (4 uncles -- my dad was lame and couldn't walk in the woods) and have eaten lots of venison, an occasional moose steak and a good number of wild geese, partridge, pheasant and rabbits, AEC, I have never seen the need for or owned any handguns; nor did said uncles or my brother. Around here, they're just used by drug gangs to shoot each other; unfortunately, with occasional collateral damage. Most folks who own long guns know how to use them; most who own pistols do not; and those who own UZIs and the like are irresponsible.

Ha. No need to enter that debate again. :)

I agree with your original premise that our constitution is constantly under attack. Those who defend it are also under attack because defending it most often involves taking on a cause the majority does not support. That is a key point as the constitution gives rights to individuals and those rights are not, and should not be, subject to being overturned by a majority vote or popular opinion.

Many of the ACLU cases just really make me shake my head, but by golly they are just about the only ones out there willing to defend the constitution and the rights it bestows... even when that right is being exercised in a way that is unpopular, morally corrupt, and offensive to the majority. The individual right is what is important, not the circumstances under which that right is exercised.

(General ownership of automatic weapons, such as an UZI, is illegal in every state.)

I agree entirely. In almost ever case of a hand gun shooting here, the weapon is unregistered contraband, the ammo not locally supplied anyway. It is getting bad though -- the bad guys have now taken to wearing body armor on their rounds which means that their opponents shoot them in the head and kill them instead of just wounding them with a wild shot to the body. Maybe that's as it should be.

And here, the police are arresting people for carrying a weapon because they had a baseball bat in the car that was within reach of the driver. To the police, the proximity to the bat makes it clear the intent is to use that bat as a weapon of self defense or attack.

Where does the insanity end? It is not the bat that is the danger, it is the individual.

We don't all live in happy, safe, friendly Canada.

Oh police here can be just as foolish. A greengrocer in Toronto chased a shoplifter and confined him and was himself arrested for carrying a concealed weapon and unlawful confinement. The weapon? A box cutter! This guy was a grocer! Fortunately, the courts cleared him, but still -- the hassle. A guy confronted burglers with an unloaded shotgun, called 911, and was himself charged with improper use of a firearm.

Am I the only one that read the title as "US Constitution in Perl?" and then was disappointed upon actually reading the messages here?

Okay, here you go:
http://hayne.net/MacDev/Perl/usConstitutionSearch

In response to the above… :D :D :D

But the amendments to the constitution have been subsequently amended (the 18th Amendement, for example). So surely any of the amendments can be redefined by the people, if they want?

And do the amendments themselves not amend or adjust the things stated in the constitution?

In other words, isn't the constitution whatever people decide that they want it to be -- a living, mutable document, rather than an intransigent Holy Writ....?

Seriously, I'm interested in the legal position. If the people of the US rose up as one man and demanded to have fewer rights and liberties, then does the constitution trump the will of the people?

My recollection is that amending the constitution or its bill of rights requires ratification by 2/3 of the States. That's a tall order.

whoa cool--you rock!

Yes, it can be changed. Here is the process from Wiki.

3/4th's of the "states" must ratify the amendment, and that's a tall order. This protects the smaller states from a few large states dictating the rules for all even if the larger states have the majority of voters.

Even the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (equal rights for women) was unable to get over this hurdle.

Ah, well... not to gong the dismal gong too hard, but as a rule republics don't last long, and always end in pretty much the same way. The careful balancing of equality gets subverted, egalitarian principles get sold out in favor of expediencies, people get distracted by irrelevancies and fall into sybaritic lethargy, and the whole thing gracefully collapses into some sort of authoritarian system (or just gets conquered). I always think it's an instructive (though probably apocryphal) story that the Greeks rushed back to Athens after winning the battle of Marathon primarily to keep the city from surrendering to the Persians anyway. Just goes to show ya.

The current problem we have in the US is really (and this is just such an appropriate way to put it) John McCain vs. Barrack Obama - in other words, the remnants of the nationalistic, conservative, WWII/Baby-Boomer/Good-Society culture against young, cosmopolitan, multi-racial, socially liberal, tech-savvy idealists. Right now the former group is struggling very hard to maintain its legacy by draconian legislative means. Assuming they don't succeed, in 10 or 20 years conservatism in this country is going to shift in an entirely Palinesque direction, and that will present different problems. Either way it goes, though, the damage they are doing to the political system is likely here to stay, and things will probably only get more dystopian. Might be a good time to think about moving overseas - the EU has a strong republican system running right now, and I suspect China will democratize fairly quickly whenever the next premier takes over.

I'm betting the credit bureaus will declare us all bankrupt (given our worthless dollar) and the courts will take over the government to manage their assets. We should have known the lawyers would get it all in the end.

Still hoping for the emergence of a third party with a more centrist view, one that reflects middle American values.

Past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future performance. The world will change. America will change.

Interesting, tw. Canada seems to be heading in the same direction in the election coming on Monday -- the middle has died and we have the hard right vying with the hard left. For the first time that I can remember, I'm not going to vote; I don't like the choices and our ballots don't have a "None of the Above" box.

Actually, I think the Canadian election is all about not going the way of the US. Harper wants us to go that way (jets, jails, corporate tax giveaways), hence it is important to vote (anybody but Harper) in order to stop this. I think the current upswing for the NDP is reflective of the fact that some people don't think the Liberals are different enough from the Conservatives. When you really want to get away, you get far away.

Ahh, Hayne; I'd call that a political statement, but one with which I happen to agree. Having said that, these principles are embedded in the NDP constitution:

Not sure I'd like to go there either, so that leaves the hapless Liberals. Even holding my nose, I can't vote for the party of Trudeau and Chretien now muddling along ineptly by Ignatieff.

I agree though I think Dr. Ron Paul offers the best hope for America at this point. A libertarian at heart and a republican, not by choice, but by the necessity of our election process.

Not a good day for liberals in Canada.