Skip to main content

Reply to "A 21st Century Bill of Rights"

I have come to the conclusion that our rights are clearly earthly/human concepts – developed out of a decidedly political process as opposed to anything from "on high". As such, they deserve to be thought about that way. To start, it is absolutely critical that the aura of infallibility be removed from our Founders. With all due respect, they were mere human beings – no different than you and me. They may have been called upon to perform great deeds, but they also – no doubt – suffered from their share of moral failures and peccadilloes as well. I've always wondered how the Founders could be considered so right about everything related to our founding documents, yet so wrong in having the sensibility to think it OK to own and dehumanize other human beings.

This "flawed document" is a worthy reference to the average so-called "Civil Rights/Civil Liberties" activist.

To my knowledge there IS NO DOCUMENT on this Earth that was written from the hands of anything other than MAN. It appears that your standard of "infallibility" is an insurmountable hurdle.

the real distinctions that nature has made, and many other circumstances which divide us into parties (would) produce convulsions which would never end but with the extermination of one or the other race."

Sounds to me that he fully understood what Public Enemy communicated years later - "White Man, Black Woman - Black Baby"

If the men who established American rights were "mere mortals", then is there any way that the rights themselves that came from them are anything more? Perhaps we should consider our rights in a more organic fashion. That is, as thoughtful Americans, perhaps we should critically evaluate our current menu of rights – adding and subtracting to meet the needs and sensibility of contemporary America.

Sounds to me that you are spounting that famous liberal line - "When THEY did it, they didn't know what they were doing. We are smarter. When we try it everything is going to work fine"

Sounds to me that the Constitution is a "living document" that should have a "Version X" produced every so often to make it relevant for the day.

MBM - when you say "meet the needs and sensibility of contemporary America"..........who's MEANS will you use to satisfy other's NEEDS? Does the "means providers" have any RIGHTS to defend their property against society marauding when the MAJORITY votes itself ownership of his property?

In psychology, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs suggests that people have to secure their most basic needs before worrying about others. For example, you've got to breathe before you can worry about self-esteem or self-actualization. This concept would seem to apply to rights as well. We have the right to free speech, and the freedom of religion, and the right to a "speedy trial", but do those rights secure our most crucial societal and human needs? What good is the right to free speech if you are struggling just to put food on the table? Is a speedy trial more important than a legal system free of bias and fraud? We are told that we are a democracy, yet Bush v. Gore and electronic voting seem to challenge that.

MBM - WHAT IF Zimbabwe, Guatemala and Laos were to PASS A CONSTITUTION that had all that you have listed?

Worse yet - absent "The Right To Free Food" in the US Constitution has allowed all but the rare exception of Americans today to have FOOD to eat. Wow - we actually got food into our stomachs without a law having been passed.

It is interesting that Bush was criticized for putting RESTRICTIONS upon man in a document that detailed an individuals RIGHTS that the government cannot abridge........YOU are no better with your philosophy. You wish to put into the sovereign document provisions that ONE INDIVIDUAL must bestow UPON ANOTHER.

Having the RIGHT to a QUALITY EDUCATION assumes that the GOVERNMENT is the critical element that produces QUALITY. (No doubt in your mind you are going to SPEND - daggumit until this elusive QUALITY is achieved - TAKING AWAY FROM OTHERS WHO HAVE REACHED YOUR PERCEIVED STATE OF "QUALITY" until we have a common set of QUALITY on a RELATIVE basis but doubtfully the "ABSOLUTE" level of quality that SOME were able to achieve prior to your intrusion.

A parent that FAILS to do her part in the achievement of "quality" could SUE THE GOVERNMENT despite HER FAILINGS and demand that the GOVERNMENT "fix her child" BECAUSE IT IS HER "RIGHT"!!!!!!