PDA

View Full Version : ‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World - NY Times




dirtae
02-06-2012, 07:34 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html


The Constitution has seen better days.


In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said.


But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

QueenB4Liberty
02-06-2012, 07:37 PM
OMG! I was really hoping this was an Onion article. (not) :( RIP, America.

RockEnds
02-06-2012, 07:39 PM
Well, nice to see a Supreme Court Justice supporting and defending the Constitution. /sarc

Seraphim
02-06-2012, 07:43 PM
So where are the farmers, teachers and doctors signing up to be slaves?

Pauls' Revere
02-06-2012, 08:39 PM
where's my entitlement house, entitled car, entitled boat, entitled airplane, entitled electricity,......

acptulsa
02-06-2012, 09:19 PM
Well, nice to see a Supreme Court Justice supporting and defending the Constitution. /sarc

Yeah, that kind of adherence to a sacred oath makes me utter a few oaths myself. But, of course, we know full well that the biggest problem with the Constitution is that it isn't obeyed, and that they're just bad mouthing it so they can replace it with something that not only doesn't defend those rights in so many words, but doesn't defend those rights at all.

Vessol
02-07-2012, 12:14 AM
I guess Freedom from Property Theft is not something that is considered that important in 2012..looking at those quotes..entitlement of food, healthcare and education..all at the barrel of a gun.


“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

I laughed out loud..and then cried a little.

Vessol
02-07-2012, 12:39 AM
This article is forgetting probably the best and most progressive Constitution of the entire world. The Constitution of North Korea guarantees civil and political rights, such as freedom of expression, the right to elect officials, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of religion. It asserts the right of every citizen to work, education, food, and health care. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!

http://asiamatters.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-korean-constitution-april-2009.html


Article 13. The state shall embody the mass line and implement in all work the Ch'o'ngsan-ri spirit and method, whereby the upper echelons assist the lower echelons, solutions to problems are sought among the masses, and the voluntary enthusiasm of the masses is aroused by giving priority to the political work, the work with people.


Article 25. The DPRK shall regard it as the supreme principle of its activities to ceaselessly improve the material and cultural living standards of the people. The increasing material wealth of the society in our country, where taxes have been abolished, shall be used entirely to promote the welfare of the working people. The state shall provide all the working people with every condition for obtaining food, clothing, and housing.


Article 56. The state shall consolidate and develop the system of universal free medical care and strengthen the district-doctor system and the preventive medicine system to protect the lives of people and improve the health of the working people.

Article 57. The state shall draw up environmental protection measures before production, preserve and develop the natural environment, and prevent environmental pollution, thus providing the people with a modern and hygienic living environment and working conditions.


Article 79. Citizens shall be guaranteed inviolability of the person and the home and privacy of correspondence. Citizens cannot be detained or arrested and their homes cannot be searched without legal grounds.


Article 65. Citizens shall have equal rights in all spheres of the state and social life.

Article 66. All citizens who have reached the age of 17 shall have the right to vote and the right to be e le cted, irrespective of sex, race, occupation, length of residence, property and intellectual level, party affiliation, political view, or religious belief. Citizens serving in the armed forces shall also have the right to vote and the right to be elected. Persons who have been disenfranchised by a court decision and persons who are insane shall not have the right to vote or the right to be elected.

Article 67. Citizens shall have freedom of speech, press, assembly, demonstration, and association. The state shall guarantee conditions for the free activities of democratic political parties and social organizations.

Article 68. Citizens shall have freedom of religion. This right shall be guaranteed by permitting the construction of religious buildings and the holding of religious ceremonies. Religion shall not be used in bringing in outside forces or in harming the state and social order.

Article 69. Citizens may make appeals and file petitions. The state shall fairly deliberate and deal with appeals and petitions as prescribed by law.

Article 70. Citizens shall have the right to labor. All citizens who are able to work shall choose occupations according to their wishes and talents, and shall be guaranteed secure jobs and working conditions. Citizens shall work according to their abilities and shall be paid in accordance with the quantity and quality of their work.

Article 71. Citizens shall have the right to rest. This right shall be guaranteed by the establishment of working hours, legal holidays, paid leave, rest and recuperation at state expense, and by a variety of continuously increasing cultural facilities.

Article 72. Citizens shall have the right to receive free medical care, and persons who are no longer able to work due to old age, illness, or physical disability, and the old and children who do not have caretakers, shall have the right to receive material assistance. This right shall be guaranteed by free medical care, continuously expanding medical facilities that include hospitals and sanitariums, and the state social insurance and the social security system.

Article 73. Citizens shall have the right to receive education. This right shall be guaranteed by an advanced educational system and the state's people-oriented educational measures.

Article 74. Citizens shall have freedom to engage in scientific, literary, and artistic activities. The state shall grant benefits to inventors and creators. Copyrights, patents to inventions, and other patent rights shall be protected by law.

Article 75. Citizens shall have freedom of residence and travel.

BamaAla
02-07-2012, 12:46 AM
I guess Freedom from Property Theft is not something that is considered that important in 2012..looking at those quotes..entitlement of food, healthcare and education..all at the barrel of a gun.



I laughed out loud..and then cried a little.

Speaking of "the barrel of a gun:"
It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)

They always seem to hate that one; they can't have us subjects possessing the ability to defend ourselves.

Vessol
02-07-2012, 12:59 AM
Speaking of "the barrel of a gun:"

They always seem to hate that one; they can't have us subjects possessing the ability to defend ourselves.

Hell no. Who wouldn't trust a incredibly small group of individuals with absolute power and the only means as to which enact mass death and imprisonment upon the populace. What are you, a crazy nutter? How could that ever turn out wrong?

...

Sarcasm aside. While I've been a critic of the Constitution itself on these boards before, it is clearly the best and most well-intended legal document of all time. And that is for one reason. By not allowing the creation of a monopoly of force by the government.

Words on a piece of paper can easily be minced and blown away into the wind with no consequence..unless you can create the culture and the idea that the people keep the government in check by NOT ALLOWING the government to keep a MONOPOLY of violence. The Founders recognized that when you gave a government the monopoly of violence, it is a bad thing to say the least. It was extremely well-intended and quite brilliant, the penultimate creation of hundreds of years of reason and brilliant thinkers. Sadly, I fear that it was just that, well-intended and did not really seem to turn out that well :(.

ClayTrainor
02-07-2012, 01:04 AM
I like the title, since I find the concept of "We the people" to be fundamentally collectivist in nature, but the actual article is pretty scary when you think about it, because the Constitution simply isn't socialist enough for these people to support it.

That one quote that vessol cited is really fucking disturbing


“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

How did that work out for them?

ClayTrainor
02-07-2012, 01:16 AM
Sarcasm aside. While I've been a critic of the Constitution itself on these boards before, it is clearly the best and most well-intended legal document of all time. And that is for one reason. By not allowing the creation of a monopoly of force by the government.

Wait... what? What is the government, if not a monopoly on force?

The Constitution further centralized state power to the hands of a few, relative to the more decentralized power that states had under the AOC. The Constitution, in essence, created a bigger monopoly on force, out of smaller monopolies on force, did it not?

Vessol
02-07-2012, 01:23 AM
Wait... what? What is the government, if not a monopoly on force?

The Constitution further centralized state power to the hands of a few, relative to the more decentralized power that states had under the AOC. The Constitution, in essence, created a bigger monopoly on force, out of smaller monopolies on force, did it not?

I know and I agree 100%. Work with me here, I didn't want to get off-topic into another debate lol. The idea behind the 'Right to Bear Arms' was to inhibit the creation of a monopoly of force. In practice, it obviously failed, and from the very start. And for the reasons you stated, that a government is inherently a monopoly of force.

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2012, 01:26 AM
Hell no. Who wouldn't trust a incredibly small group of individuals with absolute power and the only means as to which enact mass death and imprisonment upon the populace. What are you, a crazy nutter? How could that ever turn out wrong?

...

Sarcasm aside. While I've been a critic of the Constitution itself on these boards before, it is clearly the best and most well-intended legal document of all time. And that is for one reason. By not allowing the creation of a monopoly of force by the government.

Words on a piece of paper can easily be minced and blown away into the wind with no consequence..unless you can create the culture and the idea that the people keep the government in check by NOT ALLOWING the government to keep a MONOPOLY of violence. The Founders recognized that when you gave a government the monopoly of violence, it is a bad thing to say the least. It was extremely well-intended and quite brilliant, the penultimate creation of hundreds of years of reason and brilliant thinkers. Sadly, I fear that it was just that, well-intended and did not really seem to turn out that well :(.

the Constitution CAN work, the problem is that the only real enforcement is We the People in the voting booth, and We the People have been asleep at the switch.

My long-term thinking is we need to promote reading the COnstitution prior to voting, and then voting according to the Constitution as a civic duty.

America LOOOOOVES civic duties. If we can instill the idea into society that reading the Constitution before you vote in any election and then voting by what the Constitution actually says is a civic duty, then people will actually do it. If we just say 'it's a good idea' people won't do it.

I've been wracking my brain on this for a little while now. I have to crash or I'd do my best to wax eloquent on it right now.

But the bottom line is we can restore the Constitutional order, and perhaps for the first time since the founding of our nation have a government that actually obeys the Constitution...if we can convince society that it is our civic duty to read the Constitution before we vote, and vote according to it. AND that the most important vote we can make is to fire any official who violates it. Even if that means electing the other guy just because. After all, one random freshman isn't going to accomplish anything no matter how monstrous they are.

So I'm trying to work a "Read It and Vote" campaign. An RIV voter is one who perceives a civic duty to read the Constitution (Federal for Federal office, State for State office) and voting according to it.

The phrase I keep repeating that is the most important towards making this plan actually work, of course, is "civic duty." America has sold all kinds of wickedness to American in the guise of a civic duty, I think it's time to use it for something that will actually save the country.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-07-2012, 02:20 AM
I much prefer:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names, send greeting;

A Confederacy is superior in safeguarding the liberties, sovereignty, and independence of the people and their countries than Federalism -- or in other words a Nationalist State. They complained that they had too little power under the Confederation -- I argue they had too much! As we can see...the Constitution was a colossal failure if you ever believed the myth that it was to restrict Government, when it empowered it. The Constitution succeeded in it's goal of creating a Nationalist State that would have immense power to confer privileges and immunities to those connected to it's tentacles. The power of taxation, of war, of standing armies, of supremacy over the sovereign states, of a Central Bank, of an immense power increase commensurate with a radical new revolution that overthrew everything they worked for in the War of Independence. What Independence? The States to be subdued under the rule of DC?

Henry had it perfectly right:

I Smell A Rat!

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-07-2012, 02:21 AM
the Constitution CAN work, the problem is that the only real enforcement is We the People in the voting booth, and We the People have been asleep at the switch.

My long-term thinking is we need to promote reading the COnstitution prior to voting, and then voting according to the Constitution as a civic duty.

America LOOOOOVES civic duties. If we can instill the idea into society that reading the Constitution before you vote in any election and then voting by what the Constitution actually says is a civic duty, then people will actually do it. If we just say 'it's a good idea' people won't do it.

I've been wracking my brain on this for a little while now. I have to crash or I'd do my best to wax eloquent on it right now.

But the bottom line is we can restore the Constitutional order, and perhaps for the first time since the founding of our nation have a government that actually obeys the Constitution...if we can convince society that it is our civic duty to read the Constitution before we vote, and vote according to it. AND that the most important vote we can make is to fire any official who violates it. Even if that means electing the other guy just because. After all, one random freshman isn't going to accomplish anything no matter how monstrous they are.

So I'm trying to work a "Read It and Vote" campaign. An RIV voter is one who perceives a civic duty to read the Constitution (Federal for Federal office, State for State office) and voting according to it.

The phrase I keep repeating that is the most important towards making this plan actually work, of course, is "civic duty." America has sold all kinds of wickedness to American in the guise of a civic duty, I think it's time to use it for something that will actually save the country.

Ever thought for a moment that the Constitution is fulfilling its purpose right now? This was the end-goal for those who supported the Constitution, to have a Government that rivaled the British Monarchy in it's powers, in its influence, and in it's war-making abilities.