posted
Dagonee, I'm a little puzzled. Why exactly is it such a disgrace to limit rights via an amendment? Not every imaginable right really ought to be available to people.
To avoid turning this into the usual "right to murder" circus, try this: suppose that studies indicated that 75% of voters between 18 and 21 claimed to vote "for whoever I felt like at the time" and an additional 10% "for someone at random". In addition, 64% agreed that "I made a mistake to vote for the candidate I did". Would it be a disgrace to amend the Constitution and raise the voting age back to 21, thus limiting rights? (I don't really think 18--21-year-olds are that irresponsible, but it's not beyond belief.)
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabeus- That would be imprudent because that is a matter of equal rights. If a person can be forced to fight and die for his country in a war he doesn't support then he should be able to choose the person who does or does not allow that to happen.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if, by his own admission, he didn't have a clue what he was doing when he voted? (Which, again, I am not saying is the case.)
All I'm saying is that at least one logical reason to limit existing rights would be if it turned out that the people whom they had been given to turned out not to be adequately qualified to exercise them.
posted
It's the same situation when you have defense attorneys defending a man they know is guilty. You aren't fighting for that man so much as you are for the system.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Constitution is the founding document of our country. As such, it does two things:
1) It defines the structure of the federal government and enumerates the powers granted to each branch.
2) It places limits on the actions that the federal government and/or the state government can take. When these limits are aimed at protecting individuals, we call them rights.
The Constitution is designed to limit actions of government, not people. Neither the state nor the federal government may restrict the free exercise of religion, or limit free speech, or deprive people of life, liberty (as in physical restraint), or property without due process of law. There are other restrictions on government actions as well.
But the 18th Amendment is the only place in the Constitution that restricts the actions of individuals (namely the the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors).
Of course the government is given the power to restrict lots of individual actions. It can ban prostitution, drug use, and states could absolutely ban alcohol if they wanted to. The key feature of all this is that the political branches (those responsible directly to the people) have to take some action for these restrictions to occur. And the same branches can undo their own actions if such restrictions are found to be ill-conceived.
Why is it set up this way? Because the Constitution is a constraint on both the current and future generations, both of the people and the government. It is hard to amend, purposefully so. Such constraints need to be taken very seriously, and should be reserved for preserving liberty, not taking it.
The Constitution is a beautiful document. It sets up horizontal checks and balances between three branches of federal government and vertical checks and balances between the federal and the state governments. Federal law is treated as superior to state law, but is limited in the areas in which it may speak. And both states and the federal government are prevented from intruding on some core sphere governed by each individual.
An amendment to say, "Neither the state nor federal government may grant a particular right to a particular type of people" is ugly, both philosophically and aesthetically. It offends my political scientist's soul that one of the crowning achievements in governance should be so marred.
The beauty of the Constitution and how it's interpreted is that it acts as a ratchet - the individual liberty it enshrines expands much more easily than it contracts. This is why the ugliness integrated in its beginnings has been slowly excised. (Incidentally, it's also why I don't want the text amended to remove the 3/5 clause or the importation of people clause - we need the reminder of where we've come from.) Only once has war been required to correct one of its flaws. Despite all the ugliness in our history, the Constitution has survived multiple crises and emerged better for it each time.
It's an instrument that allows us to strive to be better than we are, to take our gains in respect and dignity as we make them, and to keep those gains even when our human nature tries to make us backslide.
posted
Dagonee, I can see the logic of what you are suggesting. In fact, you have largely convinced me.
One hole remains, however, and that is the power of the Supreme Court. With rare exceptions, the only way to check the effects of a bad ruling is the amendment process. We can argue either way on what specific rulings might be bad--a few I cannot imagine more than a few remnant groups arguing are good (Dred Scott being the classic, if cliche, example)--but clearly it is possible that some Court will one day make another disastrous ruling. If that ruling is one that expands rather than limits rights, how do you propose the matter be fixed? Or do you think that no conceivable ruling that expands rights can be that bad? (IMHO, a ruling that expands someone's rights often ends up limiting the rights of someone else that a court did not consider.)
I could wish that sometime early in our history, a president had begun the use of the power to pardon as a check on the power of the Court, but it is a little late for that. And, of course, the cure might have proven worse than the disease.
posted
In the case where people's rights are being upheld at the expense of other people's rights, then the amendment could be written to protect the "other people's" rights being infringed - so that scenario doesn't worry me too much. This is, of course, my hope for the abortion issue. A constitutional amendment to ban abortion would not be written to make abortion illegal but to empower Congress or state legislatures to pass legislation to protect certain rights of the unborn.
Of course, many people disagree with my interpretation of the issue. But the point is it can be couched in those terms and still pass the laugh test. I can't imagine how a "defense of marriage" amendment could be couched in terms of protecting rights.
quote:Agreed, as it isn't the sort of right which is meaningful. But one could still properly say, "I don't see why people say this is discrimination, since this right [i.e., to walk away if not shackled] is applied to everyone equally." Correct?
Well, in this case, equality is a tricky matter. After all, now the rule has limited who it applies to - only people not shackled. Some statements of this form are going to be unequal, like "Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1 as long as they aren't black." The deciding factor, I think, is whether the limitation has been arbitrarily added by the government (as in the example with blacks), or whether it follows reasonably from the right itself. For instance, it follows from the right to leave Building 1 that people shackled to the ground naturally won't be able to have that right. You might say this is unfair of nature for having these people shackled, but unless it was the government who kept them shackled, the government cannot be blamed for not being able to give them the right that others have. It is simply not practical given the constraints those people have. Whereas, if the rule limited blacks from leaving the building, the government is simply choosing to do this without having to, and thus is responsible for the inequality.
So, to answer your question, at least as far as the government is concerned, this right is being given equally and discrimination is not occuring. You might say God or Nature or whoever caused these certain people to be shackled are disrciminating against them, but I think we are talking about the government's responsibilities in these examples, no?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If polygamy became legal, what would be the great harm in that? I mean, just because the majority of people think it a strange arrangement, the only part of modern polygamy that are truly worrisome in terms of a state's interest in the issue would be marriage of underage people (females).
Insurers might have a problem with it -- imagine taking out a family policy to cover half a dozen adults and all their children. But frankly even that seems like there'd be a way to work around it.
And if they were entering into a civil union, does it really matter how many people are in the corporation?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I have to agree with CT. You're a rare creature, Dagonee -- I don't think I've ever "met" a conservative (aside from Geoff) that has the knack or ability for eloquent, reasonable discussion that you do. I hope you stick around to help show me if I'm ever wrong. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm bound to be wrong someday, if only to give the law of averages meaning.
[edited to insert Geoff; there are so few of your breed, how can I forget to include the other one?]
posted
Dagonee, now that you are a Hatracker (or Jatrequero, to be more exact), we are sworn to defend you against vile outsiders. Well, after the official ceremonies take place. But don't worry about that -- you don't have to do anything but show up.
Lalo, we're on a roll lately. sndrake, Dagonee, Brinestone, Farmgirl, lots of neat folk being folded into the pack. Mega-good Hatrack vibes out there.
posted
I swear to God I'm more eloquent in real life. However (I swear this is true) the muscles in my hands didn't form well so my hands cramp up if I write/type too long.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, a homosexuality thread with people complimenting people. And meaning it. Bonus points for everyone involved
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, CT, Brinestone's been around longer than I have, but she lurks a lot and took a long break from Hatrack before she met me. So she only seems new.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I haven't actually read the whole thread, but I have to say that I'm in agreement with Lalo (except about Gavin Newsom because I don't know anything about the man.). I don't have a problem with gay couples getting the tax breaks and and choice to promise to stay with each other and all the other marriage benefits ect. I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner, because San Francisco has one of the largest gay communities in the nation.
How could this hurt anybody? Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
