[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: The Heart of the Constitution The Heart of the Constitution,” by Gerard Magliocca (Oxford University Press) Every week, Americans are confronted with a growing sense of political and economic crisis, from the inequalities of the new economy to renewed debates about racial and gender discrimination to fresh stresses on our political institutions. During periods of crisis, the Constitution can provide a backstop, spelling out foundational rules and rights that offer a bulwark against the vicissitudes of politics. But the meaning of the Constitution can change precisely during these moments of pressure and flux. In his timely new book, “The Heart of the Constitution,” Gerard N. Magliocca highlights how a key component of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, has been a central touchstone for Americans throughout history, especially when faced with existential challenges to the legitimacy of American government. [In terms of political stalemate and crisis, is today very different from the 1780s?] Today, we colloquially see the Bill of Rights as encompassing that first batch of 1791 amendments to the Constitution, running from the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech and association to the 10th Amendment reservation of powers to state governments. But these aren’t the only rights spelled out in the Constitution. We tend to understand these rights as judicially enforceable limits on governmental action. But of course the Constitution articulates many other rights limiting government and, in some cases, implying affirmative obligations on the part of government. Article I protects individual liberties, such as the right to appeal one’s detention through writs of habeas corpus, through explicit limits on congressional power. And later amendments, crucially, achieved the abolition of slavery (through the 13th Amendment); the expansion of equal protection, due process, and the privileges and immunities of citizenship (14th); and prohibitions against restrictions on voting rights on the basis of race (15th) or sex (19th), or through poll taxes (24th). So why are these rights not considered part of the core Bill of Rights? Magliocca argues that the very idea of a bill of rights is a political and social construction. Our understandings of the existence of a bill of rights, which rights are part of the bill and what those rights mean have changed over time in response to different threats to the legitimacy and viability of American democracy. “The Bill of Rights,” Magliocca writes, “is a mirror for how America sees itself,” taking a different form “every political season.” Magliocca begins his story in the pre-founding era, looking at the early origins of a bill of rights. From the 1689 English Declaration of Rights to the Declaration of Independence to the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, these early bills were soaring, but vague, articulations of general principles of democracy, rights and liberty, directed at legislatures and often coming as a preface to major legal documents, rather than as amendments following the end. They were suggestive and prefatory, not seen as specific, enforceable rights. James Madison himself, the author of those 1791 amendments, did not refer to them as a “bill of rights” at all. The idea that these amendments constituted a specific Bill of Rights central to the meaning of the Constitution emerged much later. During the Civil War and Reconstruction, the framers of the 14th Amendment invoked the first 10 amendments as a bill of rights that, through the 14th Amendment, needed to be explicitly and directly applied to the states, in response to the experience of state-defended slavery and state suppression of anti-slavery advocacy. During the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt invoked the Bill of Rights to help legitimize his wide-ranging efforts to alleviate the Great Drepression; so long as the first 10 amendments were respected, FDR argued, critics of the New Deal were mistaken to view it as a threat to liberty. The Bill of Rights, in this view, became a touchstone for political legitimacy, effectively enabling new forms of expansive state action. The Bill of Rights took on even greater significance with the start of World War II, as Roosevelt made the amendments central to the war effort, the key distinguishing factor between the totalitarianism of Hitler’s Germany and the morality of American democracy. Opponents of the war and governmental action similarly invoked the Bill as an argument against unchecked government aggression. The Bill of Rights thus emerged through political appeals aimed at justifying new forms of state action — at home and abroad — and to bolster the legitimacy of American democracy in the face of domestic and global controversy. By the mid-20th century, the Bill of Rights had become enshrined in our public imagination and in our political and legal consciousness. The Supreme Court increasingly referenced the 1791 amendments as a Bill of Rights, at times interpreting them as a set and viewing them with a special solicitude. This surprising ascent of the Bill in popular discourse is exemplified by Magliocca’s retracing of how Americans treated the documents themselves. In a telling pair of anecdotes, Magliocca describes how a Union soldier arriving with Gen. William Sherman’s troops in North Carolina in 1865 found a copy of the original amendments to the Constitution, then sold it for $5 to an Ohio businessman, who displayed it on his office wall for many years. Only in 1938 did the federal government transfer its official copy from its unceremonious storage spot in the basement of the State Department to the National Archives. But this story of the elevation of the Bill of Rights to its central position in constitutional and political consciousness is also a story of the shifting meaning of the Bill itself. Indeed, the political purposes of the Bill of Rights over time help explain why our constitutional and political discourse today seems ill-equipped to handle the three central crises now facing American politics: the crisis of perpetual war and the post-9/11 surveillance state, the crisis of economic inequality, and the crises of systemic racial and gender discrimination and exclusion. First, Magliocca highlights the role of the Bill of Rights in distinguishing America during the 20th century from the totalitarianism of Hitler’s Nazi regime and Stalin’s Soviet Union. But this also meant that the existence of the Bill of Rights was used to sanction expansive U.S. military intervention around the world. In a particularly telling and troubling episode, Magliocca recounts how Theodore Roosevelt invoked the Bill of Rights to legitimize American imperial control of the Philippines, instructing Philippine Gov. William Howard Taft to “respect” the first 10 amendments as a way to bolster the legitimacy of U.S. rule. Second, the Cold War context of the elevation of the Bill of Rights meant that it was the civil liberties of the 1791 amendments — and not FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” for socioeconomic necessities — that got pride of place. The idea of a second bill faded away in the reaction against communism, as the Supreme Court during the 1970s systematically turned away from appeals to find implicit socioeconomic rights in the Constitution, often suggesting that these economic rights were not of the same stature or importance as the core Bill of Rights. [‘It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics of Extremism’ by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein] Third, the elevation of the Bill of Rights over the past century and a half has consistently effaced efforts to achieve a more inclusive and egalitarian view of American society. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments together espouse a radical commitment to establishing racial, economic, social and political equality, specifically aimed at uprooting the legacy of slavery. The 19th Amendment secured the vote for women, following decades of effort by feminist activists. These amendments were well-established parts of the Constitution when FDR and Harry Truman invoked the Bill in their propaganda efforts against Hitler and Stalin. Indeed, the punchline of Magliocca’s book is that our modern view of the Bill of Rights is far too stultifying. Giving pride of place to the 1791 amendments means the Bill is “locked in a gilded cage.” Yet history shows that it was precisely the fluidity of the concept of a bill of rights that enabled it to serve as a vessel for debates over American values and identity; as the country faced new challenges both foreign and domestic, appeals to (and different definitions of) a foundational bill of rights enabled essential debates about inclusion, citizenship, war and the role of the state. Furthermore, especially before the 1940s, these debates were directed not just at the courts but at the American public more broadly. Now, as we face a new set of crises, from war to inequality to structural exclusion, a more dynamic debate over a 21st-century bill of rights might offer some avenues forward. Magliocca’s book can help us start that debate Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tpaine (#0)
(Edited)
As I tried to explain to a Tea Party meeting, there are actually two constitutions. The first one is a written document. The second and most important one is the self discipline, respect for each other, and rationality that people use in their daily lives. Without a valid second constitution, the first one will fail. You can not have an extensive population creating out of wedlock children, debilitated on drugs, using no degree of future cognicence in their personal lives, using licensed theft guaranteed by corrupt politicians to pay for the indolence, and still have a first constitution that works. The Tea Partiers sat with big eyes because no one had ever told them that before.
The absence of substantial good character and intelligent foresight on the part of the population will cause the written constitution to fail and become worthless. This is why intelligent judges are concerned about the erosion of law.
Good point.. This is why I've long advocated a basic training type camp before the right to vote can be exercised. A non-compulsory short course in our republican form of constitutional government, along with some military basics, after high school, -- say for 8 weeks at least, --- would give all our citizen voters to be --- an appreciation for freedom. No basic, -- no vote...
Shut you Nazi banana hammock. It's my right to vote without your government regulations. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The grand-master-jedis of the US Constitution were pretty BIG on education, whether formal or informal. The truth is: Sunday was mass education concerning virtue and the spiritual self along with family and many other Christian principles. No formal degree, just get together in a local community environment and learn about Christian doctrine; afterwards, enjoy gossip and have Sunday lunch. Of course, heathens such as as yourself, don't give a damn about the origins of the nation.
Shut you Nazi banana hammock. It's my right to vote without your government regulations. What's fascist about my proposal? I realize that an amendment to the constitution would be necessary to enact such a program, but the principle involved is much like a peacetime draft, which I was subject to, long ago.
The grand-master-jedis of the US Constitution were pretty BIG on education, whether formal or informal. ---- Of course, heathens such as as yourself, don't give a damn about the origins of the nation. Funny, but I just made this point on another thread... Others here, (obsessed with trying to prove themselves superior beings) make a hobby or even a Lifes Quest of maintaining that the status quo is good enough.
When you can get the USSC to rule that a law keeping welfare mutts from fucking before they achieve at least a high school diploma and hold a full time job is constitutional, then I'll agree with your bullshit. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
From what he seen of your intelligence, bullshit is about all you're capable of agreeing with... And typically, you can't make a rational reply about your Nazi bullshit. There is none... Whatta fucking oaf...
They get their standards from TEE-BEE and not documented authority.
Since we all aren't EQUAL... some are superior to others. Dumb dumb I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Actually, as human beings, we are equal. The master-jedi-masters of the US Constitution got it right about two hundred and fifty years ago. Unfortunately, you are too busy counting your primers preparing for some future of and about Armageddon to pay attention to our proven past performance. ROTFL.
Equal righTs is democracy Equal results via social egineering is communism If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
You should listen to Boris, dipshit. We are not, nor have we ever been equal. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I can't. He is normally tied onto a stainless steel gurney receiving EST with a leather mouth protector tied across his face and around his neck bolted onto the gurney to restrain him.
Grandiose ---- We are not, nor have we ever been equal Exactly, --- and you have proved your inequality many times over.. The fact that you are NOT a superior being is evident in every boast..
Lots of people are superior to me, T-paper. Many are inferior. So they all don't deserve to have what I have. Unlike you, shithead, I actually expect others will have MILLIONS more than me... while you and libtard DickTard, BITCH about the "elite" rich people with your bullshit OWS 1% fear monger propaganda. Fuck off, cornhole clown. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|