yesterday, i was talking to my friend, leah the lawyer. somehow we got onto the constitution and it's current state, and she made some compelling observations. i've always been a staunch defendant of the constitution and the bill of rights (all of the rights, not just the ones i like), but we really got to talking about the structure of the constitution and what that has meant for our society over the past 30 years or so.
take my defense over the right to bear arms. i've never really considered any argument that centered around hunting--not because i don't think it's legitimate, but because i don't think that the forefathers would have considered that as something that needed elucidation. it would be like including the right to go grocery shopping in the constitution. no-one would think to do that. no, i've always believed (and i think thomas jefferson believed) that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the inalienable right to revolution. i make this argument to leah the lawyer. she nods her understanding and then asks the following question. "So, when was the last time the US Marines were defeated in combat?" To which I have no response. So we reach a crossroads of the philosophical and the practical. Yes, it is true. the right to bear arms speaks directly to the right of the people to revolt, but how practical is that option when the governing body commands an essentially undefeated military? *ponder*
take due process and all that jazz. in a criminal trial, a defendant has the right to face his accuser. ok, that is something makes sense, right? how does a defendant "face" a crime lab? when the SBI crime lab runs a test, concludes that the white powder is, indeed, cocaine and the ADA presents that report in a trial...how does the defendant "face" his accuser? is it by proxy? you can't cross examine a piece of paper, and what happens to the notion of a "speedy" trial if every single defendant calls a technician or whatever to the stand?
take every single president from abe lincoln to the present. (now i remember how we got onto this subject. there we go.) anyone that has read the constitution will quickly (i hope) notice something ridiculous. the framers of the constitution spent the vast majority of their time focused on the legislative branch of government...then the judicial....then the executive. the thinking being that as the representative of the PEOPLE the legislative branch would and should be the most...active. is that the case now? to whom do we turn when we want to hear talk of tax breaks, or education, or social security, or any other of a host of domestic concerns which should properly be the domain of the congress? we ask the president. since abe lincoln, there has been a gradual but undeniable assumption of power and leadership by the executive branch. mostly because, the powers given to the executive branch are the least defined. is there anywhere in the constitution that gave abe lincoln the authority to issue the emancipation proclamation? no. that's why he issued that order in areas still in active rebellion. the emancipation proclamation as a document held no force in the north. that's why the 13th amendment to the constitution was issued--making slavery illegal. (my history on this is a little fuzzy. forgive me any slight mistakes--they weren't on purpose)
i say all of those things just to make the point that the makeup of our society has changed sufficiently as to be alien to the framers of the constitution. but, is it feasible at this point in our history to revisit the framework of social, economic, and legal systems? who can say?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
you know there is this thing in newsweek that allows readers to send in... well, pretty much what you just wrote and they choose one and publish it. i really think you should consider sending something in. i mean, what if they really like it? what if they decide you should write a regular editorial? nevertheless, you write so well and you hit the nail on the head every time (in my opinion...) just a thought... since you have nothing else to do right? ;)
I, of course, agree with every thing that you said. I think the first step is asking the right (insert "hard") questions. Since those four planes changed the face of our nation, we have certainly been in a constitutional crisis. What do we want our nation to be? Our Constitution tells us and all others what are nation is. It is the first step in understanding These United States. Yet, when those rich, white men met in secret in Philadelphia under the pretense of editing the former Articles of Confederation and hammered out what they believed would make the best nation, would our Constitution be any different? How would James Madison deal with nuclear weapons? How would James Madison (who cooped himself up in a cabin in the woods for a year to write the damn thing because he was concerned with Virginia becoming a religious state) deal with Muslim terrorists who have rewritten their vocabulary so as someone has been "martyred" instead of some has died? How would he handle the division of power when crisis that have immediate consequences (insert Hurricane Katrina) calls for immediate action and numerous dollars spent? Can we truly expect 102 Senators and how many Representatives to do anything? When this whole country got started, there were only 26 Senators (chosen by the State LEgislatures). Major complex decisions (insert stem-cell research; national health care; determining the delicate balance between safety and individual's privacy/liberty) can be managed easier between 26 people, right? What's the solution? Town meetings? Reforming the Constitution with amendments? Can that be done? Or do we just go to work, come home, watch television, maybe play baseball or tennis, and let what ever happens happen? I don't know.
You know Jerry, this entry of yours has really been on my mind. I was wondering the other day, as I drove around, what would Thomas Jefferson think about the War on Terror. What would our Founding Fathers think, if they were presented with the knowledge that religious fundmentals who had no qualms about sending themselves, their wives, or even their children, into battle armed to a T in order implement a suicide bombing. I know that TJ was all about rebellion, but, I was wondering if he only thought rebellion from within one's country was a good thing. It seems to me that, although he wanted to see our streets run red with blood every twenty years or so, he wanted this blood to be American blood caused by other Americans. Yes? Even the American Revolution was a rebellion of English (or former English) against the motherland. It was not really as if Spain had attacked England. I was just thinking. I was wondering what m friend J squared thought.
Post a Comment