Does anyone else have a problem with this?

[Boxlicker101]

Most of the rights we USAians enjoy today don't originate in the American "democracy" but rather come out of England's feudal monarchy. Granted, we took rights that were limited to the landed elite and broadened them to cover all citizens, but they didn't originate as part of modern, western democracy.

Democracy and civil rights are two separate and independent things. You can have one, the other, or both. We're rapidly moving towards a democracy with drastically limited civil rights. The end result is the tyranny of the majority.

(Emphasis added by me) This is a ridiculous statement. Over the last fifty years, we have been moving in the direction of expanded civil rights, especially in the South, but all over the USA.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I am not a guru, but isn't the whole concept of democracy a deception? Just a question.

Quote paraphrasing March and Olsen: "Democracy is a faith, and a sophisticated one. It is a vision of broad commitments to personal liberty and individual responsibility; popular sovereignty and political equality (meaning all adults have the right to participate and count as equals); faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs; and an emphasis on procedural reliability and stability, the rule of law, and regulation of authority. It is a vision of a self-chosen life."

Most of the rights we USAians enjoy today don't originate in the American "democracy" but rather come out of England's feudal monarchy. Granted, we took rights that were limited to the landed elite and broadened them to cover all citizens . . .

That's quite a signifigant "granted!"

 

[Guest]

Getting down to brass tacks... I think.

[WARNING: DIATRIBE AHEAD]

Let's reframe the discussion a bit by getting down to what I see as being the roots of the conflict--the dichotomy between "liberty" and "safety."

Liberty--including civil rights--is a relative term, a construct, hemmed in by countless laws, regulations, and customs, many of which are at least suposedly for our "safety." Nevertheless, there is a certain amount of liberty--which I define as freedom of thought and action--that we have come to expect, and we are justifiably upset when something appears to threaten that liberty.

Safety, while also a relative term and a construct, is an illusion. Robert Heinlein spoke true when he wrote, "There is no safety this side of the grave" in Stranger in a Strange Land. However, federal officials, and others, are saddled with the often thankless task of trying to keep this country's borders, its infrastructure, and its citizens safe... a truly impossible job, given that absolute safety doesn't exist and achieving anything less than absolute safety--not allowing a single successful attack on or within the United States--is defined as failure.

So, how do these officials cope with this mind-numbing contradiction? They come down on the side of "safety" at the expense of "liberty" because to do anything else is failure. They actually have my sympathy, to a certain extent.

I suspect, without actually knowing, that these same officials consider abrogration of certain civil rights to be acceptable because 1) they view such abrogration as selective, on a case-by-case basis, and 2) they view them as temporary... "just for the duration of the war."

The problem, of course, is that this is a war that has no possible endpoint. And once people step over the line in pursuit of something impossible, they are on a very slippery slope. It becomes far easier to justify the next abrogration of rights... and the next... and to apply such deprivations of liberty to an increasingly wider range of persons.

If, as a country, we were to rise up and say, "Very well. We accept the fact that you can't keep us perfectly safe. We'll live with it. Make sure that you don't suspend any Constitutional, legislative, or judicial rights and liberties as you go about keeping us as safe as you can," then we might see less impetus toward throwing out certain portions of the Constitution with the bathwater.

But, as obsessed as we are as a nation with "safety," I don't see that happening.

 

[Boxlicker101]

[WARNING: DIATRIBE AHEAD]

Let's reframe the discussion a bit by getting down to what I see as being the roots of the conflict--the dichotomy between "liberty" and "safety."

Liberty--including civil rights--is a relative term, a construct, hemmed in by countless laws, regulations, and customs, many of which are at least suposedly for our "safety." Nevertheless, there is a certain amount of liberty--which I define as freedom of thought and action--that we have come to expect, and we are justifiably upset when something appears to threaten that liberty.

Safety, while also a relative term and a construct, is an illusion. Robert Heinlein spoke true when he wrote, "There is no safety this side of the grave" in Stranger in a Strange Land. However, federal officials, and others, are saddled with the often thankless task of trying to keep this country's borders, its infrastructure, and its citizens safe... a truly impossible job, given that absolute safety doesn't exist and achieving anything less than absolute safety--not allowing a single successful attack on or within the United States--is defined as failure.

So, how do these officials cope with this mind-numbing contradiction? They come down on the side of "safety" at the expense of "liberty" because to do anything else is failure. They actually have my sympathy, to a certain extent.

I suspect, without actually knowing, that these same officials consider abrogration of certain civil rights to be acceptable because 1) they view such abrogration as selective, on a case-by-case basis, and 2) they view them as temporary... "just for the duration of the war."

The problem, of course, is that this is a war that has no possible endpoint. And once people step over the line in pursuit of something impossible, they are on a very slippery slope. It becomes far easier to justify the next abrogration of rights... and the next... and to apply such deprivations of liberty to an increasingly wider range of persons.

If, as a country, we were to rise up and say, "Very well. We accept the fact that you can't keep us perfectly safe. We'll live with it. Make sure that you don't suspend any Constitutional, legislative, or judicial rights and liberties as you go about keeping us as safe as you can," then we might see less impetus toward throwing out certain portions of the Constitution with the bathwater.

But, as obsessed as we are as a nation with "safety," I don't see that happening.

You have a certain point, but what do the laws regarding "victimless crime" such as prostitution and public drunkenness have to do with public safety?

 

[Guest]

I didn't say that all laws and regulations are supposedly for our safety, just many of them. The laws regarding "victimless crimes" are, IMNSHO, examples of constraints on liberty. Whether they're justified, of course, will depend on the person you talk to.

I'll let some of the Constitutional scholars on this thread (of which I most certainly am not one!) address that issue, if any of them are so inclined.

 

[Pure]

facts, please, rox.

in the law, rox, a national emergency would justify breaches of the bill of rights. let's agree to that.

is there one?

RA How about you have an identifiable body of citizens who have de facto if not formally renounced their citizenship and are conspiring with foreign enemies to attack the United States in the form of terrorist acts that murder large numbers of our citizens?

tell us about this 'identifiable body'? is it over 10? 100? 1000?

how many citizens have been detained for, say, more than a year, or sentenced to more than a year, in connection with these alleged activities?

please, facts. then you can go play "Hail to the Chief."

 

[Pure]

note to avoiding

Granted, we [US] took rights that were [in England] limited to the landed elite and broadened them to cover all citizens . . .

US voting rights were originally limited to a white, male, landed elite.

These rights were broadened *as in England* to the wider populace;
in the US case, through constitutional amendments.

Oh, and one little incident, to address the 'white' [=black] problem: a Civil War with 200,000 combat deaths.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Granted, we [US] took rights that were [in England] limited to the landed elite and broadened them to cover all citizens . . .

US voting rights were originally limited to a white, male, landed elite.

These rights were broadened *as in England* to the wider populace;
in the US case, through constitutional amendments.

Oh, and one little incident, to address the 'white' [=black] problem: a Civil War with 200,000 combat deaths.

I believe the franchise was limited to male "property owners" which would include farmers or anyody who owned his own home. This would hardly be a "landed elite" and any man could aspire to own property and become eligible to vote. I'm quite sure it did not exclude free blacks who were property owners.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Granted, we [US] took rights that were [in England] limited to the landed elite and broadened them to cover all citizens . . .

US voting rights were originally limited to a white, male, landed elite.

These rights were broadened *as in England* to the wider populace;
in the US case, through constitutional amendments.

Oh, and one little incident, to address the 'white' [=black] problem: a Civil War with 200,000 combat deaths.

620,000 soldier deaths in total - most to disease.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

[WARNING: DIATRIBE AHEAD]

Let's reframe the discussion a bit by getting down to what I see as being the roots of the conflict--the dichotomy between "liberty" and "safety."

Liberty--including civil rights--is a relative term, a construct, hemmed in by countless laws, regulations, and customs, many of which are at least suposedly for our "safety." Nevertheless, there is a certain amount of liberty--which I define as freedom of thought and action--that we have come to expect, and we are justifiably upset when something appears to threaten that liberty.

Safety, while also a relative term and a construct, is an illusion. Robert Heinlein spoke true when he wrote, "There is no safety this side of the grave" in Stranger in a Strange Land. However, federal officials, and others, are saddled with the often thankless task of trying to keep this country's borders, its infrastructure, and its citizens safe... a truly impossible job, given that absolute safety doesn't exist and achieving anything less than absolute safety--not allowing a single successful attack on or within the United States--is defined as failure.

So, how do these officials cope with this mind-numbing contradiction? They come down on the side of "safety" at the expense of "liberty" because to do anything else is failure. They actually have my sympathy, to a certain extent.

I suspect, without actually knowing, that these same officials consider abrogration of certain civil rights to be acceptable because 1) they view such abrogration as selective, on a case-by-case basis, and 2) they view them as temporary... "just for the duration of the war."

The problem, of course, is that this is a war that has no possible endpoint. And once people step over the line in pursuit of something impossible, they are on a very slippery slope. It becomes far easier to justify the next abrogration of rights... and the next... and to apply such deprivations of liberty to an increasingly wider range of persons.

If, as a country, we were to rise up and say, "Very well. We accept the fact that you can't keep us perfectly safe. We'll live with it. Make sure that you don't suspend any Constitutional, legislative, or judicial rights and liberties as you go about keeping us as safe as you can," then we might see less impetus toward throwing out certain portions of the Constitution with the bathwater.

But, as obsessed as we are as a nation with "safety," I don't see that happening.

Good post.

 

[rgraham666]

Granted, we [US] took rights that were [in England] limited to the landed elite and broadened them to cover all citizens . . .

US voting rights were originally limited to a white, male, landed elite.

These rights were broadened *as in England* to the wider populace;
in the US case, through constitutional amendments.

Oh, and one little incident, to address the 'white' [=black] problem: a Civil War with 200,000 combat deaths.

600,000 was the figure I read this morning.

More than all the other wars the U.S. has been in put together.

 

[Guest]

600,000 was the figure I read this morning.

More than all the other wars the U.S. has been in put together.

Depends on how you read it. Here's something on past U.S. war casulties that I found at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-20-cover-usat_x.htm


(I copied and pasted, but the formatting got all screwed up.)

The way I read it is that the Civil War WAS the deadliest (a total of 564,000 dead and just under 420,000 casualties ) but WWII had 405,399 total dead and 670,846 casualties. Hard telling how many casualties in each war eventually succumbed to their wounds. Nitpicking, I know.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

Granted, we [US] took rights that were [in England] limited to the landed elite and broadened them to cover all citizens . . .

US voting rights were originally limited to a white, male, landed elite.

These rights were broadened *as in England* to the wider populace;
in the US case, through constitutional amendments.

I didn't mean to imply that the US was alone in broadening civil rights, nor that they broadened them right away (in this country it was a 200-year process). What I am saying is that in the US, the writ of habeas corpus, the right not to self-incriminate, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a trial by jury, and so forth find their origins in medieval and early-modern England. Franklin and Jefferson didn't just come up with them one night while drinking.

Trial by jury goes back to Anglo-Saxon times.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to say that England didn't broaden their civil rights. After the Reform Act of 1832, England was in many ways much more progressive than the US.

Oh, and one little incident, to address the 'white' [=black] problem: a Civil War with 200,000 combat deaths.

They paid dearly for their sins. I say "they" because my ancestors were living in Europe at the time .

Compromise didn't work with the slavers, nor did it work 80 years later with Hitler. That's the peril of not learning history: you make the same mistakes over and over. Sorry if I'm drifting aimlessly...

 

[oggbashan]

No Roxanne you are quite wrong .

The rule of law in the USA does not depend on and has no origin in the US constitution. In fact it depends on a woman and predates the constitution by 200 years.

That woman was Elizabeth I who when she issued letters patent for the first attempt at north American colonisation in 1583 specifically included the provision that 'the law of this realm shall be applied'

She and subsequent English (not british) monarchs included a similar requirement in every colony which was attempted. it was this rule of law which made north American settlement fundamentally different from latin America where the colonists acted as the personal agents of the Catholic monarchs.

The rule of Law in the USA preceded any settlement and was applied from ouside by an English monarch. Democracy had nothing to do with it

"The law of this realm" i.e. England included Magna Carta "We will deny justice to no man" and the Common Law which predated the Norman Conquest of 1066. Even Magna Carta was only a re-statement of the rights of the people that King John had been ignoring. It may have been forced on King John by the Barons, but the Barons had the common people backing them.

The English commoner and the Guilds of the various cities, especially London, have defended the rights of the common man throughout English history. To this day no monarch can enter the City of London without the consent of the Lord Mayor. Of course, being an English gentleman, he doesn't refuse.

In 1066, the fyrd of Kent, the yeomanry, insisted that William the Conqueror respected their ancient customs and laws or else he would have to fight them. William agreed. To this day Kent's motto is "Invicta" = Unconquered.

Elizabeth 1 governed with the consent of her people. Charles 1 tried to govern without that consent and had his head removed.

English Law is far more ancient and complex than the US Constitution. At the time of the US War of Independence the rights of the 13 colonies were being ignored. Before the fighting started many people in England considered that the 13 colonies had genuine grievances that needed redress and were being denied the protection of laws that were a common heritage.

Democracy, in the sense that rulers govern with the consent of the people, was alive and well in England under Elizabeth.

Og

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

(Emphasis added by me) This is a ridiculous statement. Over the last fifty years, we have been moving in the direction of expanded civil rights, especially in the South, but all over the USA.

There haven't been expanded civil rights. Simply the expansion of the same civil rights to cover more people.

Now we live in a world in which we're prepared to submit to unreasonable search and seizure, allow habeas corpus to be disregarded, our privacy to be invaded, all in the name of greater security. The result will be a world in which those who are different from the majority (let's say... those who like to write erotica) can be repressed by the majority. "Keep an eye on them. Tap their phones. Search their homes. Pull them over on the highway and root through their car. Lock them up without charging them," the majority will demand. It's perfectly democratic.

I'd rather have a hereditary monarchy and keep my civil rights then have perfect democracy and no freedom.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Granted, we [US] took rights that were [in England] limited to the landed elite and broadened them to cover all citizens . . .

US voting rights were originally limited to a white, male, landed elite.

These rights were broadened *as in England* to the wider populace;
in the US case, through constitutional amendments.

Oh, and one little incident, to address the 'white' [=black] problem: a Civil War with 200,000 combat deaths.

Pure, can you tell me what amendment grants us all the right to vote?

ETA: Or anywhere that it grants a citizen the right to vote? Or anyone the right to vote?

Just so you don't strain yourself in research: The is no...that's NO constitutional right to vote in any federal election or local election for that matter. None, Zip, Nada! The constitution just tells the states that they can not limit voting based on Race, Religion, Creed, gender, etc. It does not give anyone the right to vote!

 

[Guest]

If this has already been quoted on the thread, my apologies, but I think it's worth hearing from old Ben Franklin at this point:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Is this THE most pressing issue the country faces? Probably not, which is why it'll get shoved to the back burner. Is this an issue that could irrevocably alter the very basis for this country's existence? (Yes, I know it was largely about property rights at first, but it's grown a lot since then.) I think it could if the trend continues.

So, at the risk of politicizing this thread, if you don't like what's been happening in this country over the last 7 years, it's time to make your vote count.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There haven't been expanded civil rights. Simply the expansion of the same civil rights to cover more people.

Oh? Really? In 1967, SCOUS ruled laws against interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. In 1973 SCOUS ruled anti-abortion laws to be unconstitutional. In 1964 the 24th Amendment outlawed poll taxes.

In the early sixties, even in California, it was illegal for me to eat my girl friend's pussy or fuck my boy friend in the ass. If the girl friend was married, it was illegal to fuck her anywhere. Those laws were repealed.

Given time, I could probably locate dozens of examples of expansion of civil rights.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Pure, can you tell me what amendment grants us all the right to vote?

ETA: Or anywhere that it grants a citizen the right to vote? Or anyone the right to vote?

Just so you don't strain yourself in research: The is no...that's NO constitutional right to vote in any federal election or local election for that matter. None, Zip, Nada! The constitution just tells the states that they can not limit voting based on Race, Religion, Creed, gender, etc. It does not give anyone the right to vote!

I'll let Pure do the constitutional research, but will note one interesting phenomenon. The US first-past-the-post congressional voting system is what unintentionally resulted in the two-party system, and that has perhaps been the most signifigant factor in the expansion of the franchise. Why? We have two mass-parties vying for power that must assemble coalitions within themselves to win elections. That gave each the incentive at various times to want the franchise expanded to previously excluded groups the expected to support their party. In a curious way we see a similar phenomenon right now with one of the parties preferring policies that turn a blind eye to illegal aliens voting.

 

[cantdog]

So, at the risk of politicizing this thread, if you don't like what's been happening in this country over the last 7 years, it's time to make your vote count.

The thread is locally categorized as political already.

You don't have to bring up votes to get that label.

You sound like the ACLU. Good for you, I say.

 

[Guest]

You sound like the ACLU. Good for you, I say.

ACLU???

Oh, THANKS, cantdog! You just set off every FBI net-snooping program in existence!

Just kidding. I take that as a compliment, although I wish I had the resources--and with them, the freedom of action--to be more strongly outspoken in other venues.

 

[cantdog]

FBI has its good side. Sure, they are the country's political police, but they are very carefully distancing themselves from the torture.

Anyway, back to the topic.

 

[Boxlicker101]

FBI has its good side. Sure, they are the country's political police, but they are very carefully distancing themselves from the torture.

Anyway, back to the topic.

They're a lot more than just the political police. They also investigate kidnappings, bank robberies, counterfeiting, mail or internet fraud and provide support for local police agencies in things like fingerprint data base and analyzing evidence and other things. I doubt if they deliberately spend any time on victimless crimes, which would make them OK with me.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'm sure "Rule of Law" encompasses many ideas and customs from distant roots, but the basic idea is quite simple: for transgressions against, especially, the State, there is a codified way to go about handling the accused party that has been adjudicated and legislated in accordance with principles set down in the Constitution. As has been shown, the Constitution grants the State certain exceptional circumstances, such as wartime, when procedures are different. It has been determined by the courts that these exceptions are not absolute, particularly when applied to US citizens. Even under wartime, there are treaty obligations, the UCMJ, and other laws that limit the power of the Executive. Other laws grant specific powers under defined circumstances. Over time and the facing of many threats, external and internal, the laws have evolved, but the basic idea remains the same: the state can't lock people up simply because someone wants to lock them up.
At various points in this administration, the Justice Dept. has argued that we are at war, and therefore the Executive has virtually unlimited wartime powers. At the same time, they argue that those we capture are not Prisoners of War, because they don't fight for a defined state entity, and therefore they have none of the rights guaranteed by treaty or UCMJ. They have argued that the CIA is not subject to the UCMJ; indeed, that it is not subject to published laws but only secret legal opinions drawn up by toadies with no outside review. The administration has justified this all by believing in some type of inherent USA-is-rightness that has overtones of claiming Divine will.
Time after time, courts have struck down much of this Executive overreach, and the Justice Dept. has jerked cases back and forth between military courts and criminal courts to suit their whims. Justice Dept. officials have testified in Congress about how there is no need for oversight of the Executive Branch in these cases because there are internal checks, only to come back months later and testify that the same internal checks haven't been followed or applied in the limited cases that they were supposed to apply to.
To insist that our Government follow the law is not being an "absolutist", nor is it being naive about the current circumstances of terrorist threats.

 

[cantdog]

Well, it's lovely, huck, to have checks and balances. I point out that a lot of patently unconstitutional laws get passed every year, and they do that knowing full well they will soon enough be struck down. In the gap betwen the passage of the law and its removal, though, they have the use of a nifty sweet power they never would have had.

An example; In the 2000 election, it was illegal for a third party candidate to be on the ballot, in North Carolina. The law read that even if someone wrote in a candidate not from one of the two parties, all it would accomplish would be to have the entire ballot thrown out.

The law lasted long enough, before judicial review, to ensure that every "third" party got exactly 0% of the North Carolina vote.