"I think there is a
proliferation of rights. I am often surprised by the virtual nobility
that seems to be accorded those with grievances. . . . I have to admit
that I am one of those people that still thinks a dishwasher is a
miracle." --Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
I. RIGHTS WE'VE HAD
II. RIGHTS WE NEED
III. CHANGES WE CAN MAKE
I. RIGHTS WE'VE HAD
According
to the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The men who put
their signatures to those words sought to endow each other with those
rights, and those rights can be gained or lost. And since that day,
people around the world have imagined, created, and struggled for a
great many additional rights as well.
Our Constitution came very
early in the history of the formal establishment of individual rights.
It helped to inspire many other nations to develop the idea further,
and to inspire international agreements. Our original Bill of Rights is
no longer cutting edge, and yet it does a remarkably good job of
providing many basic protections. The most glaring problem with it is
not dated concepts or ambiguous wording, but our failure to enforce it.
We have to make enforcement happen through Congress and the courts, or
there will be no point in making improvements. To restore and expand
our rights, there are three basic steps we should take. The first is to
enforce the rights already protected by the Constitution. The second is
to ratify and enforce international agreements (some of which the
United States has already ratified) providing additional rights. The
third is to amend our Constitution to include a second Bill of Rights.
So,
first things first: how are we doing on enforcing the rights that we
are already supposed to have? Here are the basic rights provided by the
US Constitution and its amendments, and a quick summary of the shape
they're in today:
Article I, Section 9, habeas corpus: The right
not to be kidnapped and detained without charge or trial has been
eroded in the United States, its territories, and secret prisons.
The
Supreme Court has admirably insisted on the right, while Congress has
been willing to toss it to the wind. Not a single individual has been
held accountable for having violated it, and the violations have not
ended. In 2001 and 2002, US Justice Department lawyers put down in
"legal" opinions that the right to habeas corpus could be tossed aside.
In 2007 Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before Congress
that the right to habeas corpus that appears in the Constitution
doesn't really exist. In 2009, the new Obama administration claimed the
continued power to render and detain without charge.
Article I, Section 10, the right against ex post facto laws:
It
is clearly unconstitutional to criminalize something that has already
been done and then punish a crime that was not a crime when it
happened. But what about taking actions that were crimes when they
happened and immunizing the violators? This looks like Congress taking
over the president's pardon power. If the ban on ex post facto laws is
understood to include laws that grant retroactive immunity from
prosecution, then Congress has been busy violating it by passing laws
like the Military Commissions Act or the FISA Amendments Act, laws that
claim to give immunity to past violators of crimes. We should consider
whether to amend the Constitution to clarify that point.
First Amendment, freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and the right to petition for redress of grievances:
President
Bush punched quite a few holes in the wall of separation between church
and state. He used agencies including the United States Department of
Justice (DOJ), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Park
Service, the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
the Department of Education (DOE), the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Office of the Surgeon General to promote the
establishment of a religion.
Freedom of the press has been
severely curtailed by the establishment of a system that bars entry to
ownership of effective media outlets to all but the very wealthiest.
Pundits in the existing media outlets are often directly paid and told
what to say by the Pentagon or the White House. Media outlets in
occupied nations like Iraq are paid to publish false stories. Reporters
on wars are "embedded" with the military, denied access, and banned
from publishing important information and images. Independent reporters
were preemptively detained but not charged with any crimes during the
2008 Republican National Convention. Freedom of speech and assembly
have been radically curtailed to the point where we now have "free
speech zones" consisting of walled-in cages outside and at a distance
removed from political events. These freedoms are also absent in the
workplace, where unionization is effectively blocked, and in "private"
gathering places like shopping malls. While you can appeal to your
government for a redress of grievances, you'd better do so by mail.
People attempting to do so in person are usually prevented by security
guards. A Justice Department memo on October 23, 2001, claimed the
president could suspend First Amendment rights.
Second Amendment, the right to bear arms:
The
Second Amendment was written to protect the Southern states' right to
use armed militias to enforce slavery. We no longer have slavery, but
we do have the National Guard, which is supposed to be under the
control of state governors. We need to correct the current situation in
which the US president controls the National Guard and sends its
members to fight foreign wars for empire. If we read the Second
Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, it is
important to notice that it makes no distinction between the right to
bear arms to violently protect oneself and the right to bear arms to
easily slaughter masses of people, or the fact that some types of arms
are much better suited to the latter than the former. Clearly, this is
one right that needs to be limited by legislation or amendment to the
extent that it conflicts with that "self-evident" right to "life."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
