[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Corrupt Government Title: Why the Bill of Rights Is Failing 225 years ago today, the first ten amendments were added to the new Constitution of 1787. Those amendments have come to be known as the Bill of Rights, and taken as a whole, these amendments represent what can only be described as one of the few parts of the Constitution worth applauding today. While most of the Constitution is concerned with centralizing government power, raising tax revenue, protecting the institution of chattel slavery, and hammering the independent states into a consolidated political union, the Bill of Rights, on the other hand, was concerned with limiting government power: Bizarrely revered by many as a "pro-freedom" document, the document now generally called "the Constitution" was originally devoted almost entirely toward creating a new, bigger, more coercive, more expensive version of the United States. The United States, of course, had already existed since 1777 under a functioning constitution that had allowed the United States to enter into numerous international alliances and win a war against the most powerful empire on earth. Fortunately, there were some who stood in the way of the people we now refer to as "the Founding Fathers." They were the anti-federalists the good guys who stood against Washington and his friends and who demanded a Bill of Rights before they would even consider ratifying the new Constitution. In the end, however, the Bill of Rights was far weaker than it should have been. It was, essentially, just a bone the Federalists threw to the opposition in order to get the new Constitution ratified. The anti-Federalists, after all, couldn't even conceive of a federal government as enormous, bloated, and powerful as the US government is today. Living in a world where the individual state governments were both highly democratic and powerful in relation to the central government, the anti-Federalists figured they had enough tools at their disposal to prevent the sort of centralization that has taken place over the past two hundred years. The optimistic anti-Federalists were, unfortunately, wrong. But, there was much more than could have been done had the anti-Federalists insisted. William Watkins offers some insights today into what could have been: The state conventions that ratified the Constitution suggested over 200 amendments to the Constitution to cure structural problems. For example, Virginia offered a lengthy amendment on the judicial power. The proposal, in the main, would have limited the federal judiciary to the Supreme Court and various admiralty courts established by Congress. State courts would serve as the trial courts of the Union with the possibility of appeal to the Supreme Court. Virginians rightly feared that the federal judiciary would become an engine of consolidated government and sought to limit its power. Massachusetts feared the new power of taxation in the federal government. Massachusetts, through the pen of John Hancock, offered a proposal that would have prohibited Congress from levying direct taxes ... As a check on the national government, Massachusetts wanted the states to retain some control on Congresss demands for revenue. Massachusetts also proposed an amendment dealing with concerns about inadequate representation. Massachusetts asked that the Constitution be amended to guarantee one representative to every thirty thousand persons . . . A ratio in excess of one representative for every 30,000 people would not, in Massachusettss opinion, be a true and viable representation. How disappointed would Hancock and Company be to see that today we average 1 representative for about every 750,000 person. Do we have truly representative government? Not in the eyes of the patriots from Massachusetts who understood that true representation can only take place on a human scale. [RELATED: "The US Should have 10,000 Members of Congress"] Rather than sitting back today and mindlessly celebrating the high temple of our constitutional order, Americans should dust off copies of the substantive amendments proposed by the state ratifying conventions but ignored by Madison and the Federalist majority in the first Congress. (Massachusetts Amendments, Virginias Amendments, New Yorks Amendments, North Carolinas Amendments). Better, more limiting, and more numerous amendments may indeed have been helpful. But, no law written on parchment can control the size and scope of government if the population is willing to accept more state control over their lives. The fact remains that the American public generally tolerates countless violations of the Tenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Second Amendment. The federal government routinely seizes private property without due process, fails to provide for speedy trials, passes federal gun control laws, and invents powers for itself that are reserved to the states and the citizens alone. Even the First Amendment is now being targeted by the feds who are the throes of limiting freedom of speech and freedom of the press by labeling objectionable ideas as "fake news" and thus not so-called protected speech. These attacks will be tolerated if the public is willing to go on doing so. After all, the Bill of Rights itself never actually limited government power. Government power to the extent it has actually been limited was limited because citizens valued the ideas reflected in the Bill of Rights. Once the public abandons the ideology behind the Bill of Rights, then the Bill of Rights will cease to mean anything, even if it still ostensibly remains in force. Not surprisingly, as the public ideological views have changed, the Constitution has failed to limit the power of the central government. Murray Rothbard observed this long ago when he wrote: From any libertarian, or even conservative, point of view, it has failed and failed abysmally; for let us never forget that every one of the despotic incursions on mans rights in this century, before, during and after the New Deal, have received the official stamp of Constitutional blessing. Rothbard was echoing Lysander Spooner who wrote: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. From a legal standpoint, this state of affairs was easy to bring about because in practice the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. But, even the Court is limited by the public's ideological views and the public's willingness to tolerate the Court's rulings. If the public is willing to accept the seizure of private property in the name of the War on Drugs or the War on Terrorism, then we should not be surprised when government agencies do so. If the public is willing to grant the federal government powers that are clearly not found in the Constitution itself, the fact that the Bill of Rights legally prohibits such things will be of little consequence. As written, the Bill of Rights is a beneficial summary of many of the limitations that should be placed on government power. Without a public rooted in an ideology that supports and demands respect for the Bill of Rights, however, the words will ultimately mean nothing at all. Poster Comment: Ron Paul is wrong about liberty being popular. The voters want a tazering, and a hose down with pepper spray for their fellow man. Sheeple, gonna sheeple. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
The Bill of Rights, as written, was concerned with limiting federal government power, not the states.
You're ignoring the 9th. It's the guiding philosophy of liberty. The heart & soul of the BOR and the USA. Liberty is not confined to a narrow realm, like a fictitious "Free Speech Zone".
Or an overly broad interpretation of borders. Some states are entirely "constitution-free zones".
In those 100 miles extended international border zones, only the fourth amendment is modified to exclude probable cause and a warrant by Border Patrol agents. Reasonable suspicion is still required, as is adherence to the rest if the U.S. Constitution. Calling it a "constitution-free zone" would be FAKE NEWS, now wouldn't it?
And you see no problem with that, "excluding" probable cause and/or a WARRANT? Any other rights you'd like to see "modified"? Reasonable suspicion is still required, as is adherence to the rest if the U.S. Constitution. If they are able to "modify" the Fourth Amendment it is certainly reasonable to think that they will eventually decide to "modify" the other 9. I'm sure whitey approves, because - pot.
Because when it comes to international border security, the interests of the citizenry as a whole outweigh the interest of the individual. In addition, coming into the United States from abroad is a voluntary act, and people are aware they will be searched. By entering, they give their implicit consent. If their privacy is more important, they're free not to enter.
Are you channeling Spock now? This isn't "Star Trek" and the United States is not the "Federation of Planets". ...coming into the United States from abroad is a voluntary act, and people are aware they will be searched. That would make the entire population of many states susceptible to search, even if they had never crossed the border and even if they have lived in the United States their entire lives. If their privacy is more important, they're free not to enter. Maybe you should have added "If their privacy is more important, they're free to leave."
Many? The entire population of how many states? FAKE NEWS!! The Border Patrol requires "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation (or crime) in order to conduct a search within 100 miles of the United States international border.
I guess you ignored the map. All of Florida, Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Most of Connecticut, all of Michigan, most of New York and Pennsylvania. FAKE NEWS!! Whatever you say Hillary.
So that would be the entire population of 1,2,3,4 ... 5 states. Your statement was, "That would make the entire population of many states susceptible to search ..." 5 states out of 50 states is "many"? What an idiot.
How about "the entire population of SEVERAL of the states" then? Would that make you understand the fact that this 100 mile border zone bullshit is infringing upon the rights of MILLIONS of people within those states?
That's not a fact. This zone may encompass millions, but it doesn't infringe the rights of millions. Within 25-75 miles of our southern border, for example, the Border Patrol operates 71 traffic checkpoints, including 33 permanent traffic checkpoints, along major U.S. highways.
There are no replies to Comment # 25. End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|