7 ms·
No kidding, the farmers (who grew up in the heartland of america) of the constitution knew that only god fearing american citizens were worthy of the rights spe
by fleitz 14y ago
No kidding, the farmers (who grew up in the heartland of america) of the constitution knew that only god fearing american citizens were worthy of the rights specifically enumerated to them by the state via the bill of rights.
I don't know where people get the idea that these rights extend to everyone, or that there may be more rights than specifically listed in the bill of rights.
- drcube 14y agoI can't tell if you're joking. Please tell me you are.
- sillysaurus 14y agoHe's joking.
- charonn0 14y agoOh, thank god...
- fleitz 14y agoI thought "farmers of the constitution (who grew up in the heartland)" was a dead giveaway.
- mylittlepony 14y agoIt wouldn't be the first time I read something like this, even in HN. You got me good.
- rayiner 14y agoLeave aside what you learned in high school about the Constitution, and look at the document and the actual history. At the time of the founding, and for more than 100 years after the founding, the Bill of Rights didn't even prevent North Carolina from detaining an American Citizen without trial. And you're seriously telling me that the founders would have contemplated applying Constitutional protections to Afghans in Afghanistan?
- adrianbg 14y agoIt's weird how often discussions about amendments get caught up on wording, precedents and people's intentions rather than what is good or bad. It's as if the founding fathers figured it all out and wrote it all down back in the day, and with only the right interpretation everything will be perfect. Sounds a lot like religion.
- rayiner 14y agoDebates about Constitutionality become legalistic because the Constitution is a legal document. It's basically a contract that represents the last time Americans ever managed to (kinda) agree on anything. You also have to keep in mind that debates about Constitutionality arise over politically unpopular topics. It's a way for people with minority viewpoints to say: "well, whether you think this is good or bad, it is inconsistent with this larger scheme we all agreed to." If you held a vote and asked people whether they thought people accused of terrorism, especially abroad, should have rights, you'd lose. I remember in college being the lone dissenting voice in a discussion of the merits of turning the entire Middle East into a glass parking lot. Ordinary Americans believe very deeply in the sovereign right of the American government to kill foreigners who do anything contrary to American interests. Hence the resort to legalism. You can't convince Americans that it's good for suspected terrorists to be given trials, etc, so the best you can hope to do is convince them that they, collectively, bargained away the ability to hold suspected terrorists without trial.
- drewcrawford 14y agoThere are two problems with this analysis. The first is that the Constitution is not a "contract" with which Americans "collectively bargained away" anything, because modern Americans were not alive at the alleged time of bargaining away things, and being alive is a prerequisite for making a contract. To believe in constitutionalism is essentially to not believe in governance by the consent of the governed. The other problem is that even if it was a contract, we seem to ignore it, because we pass the laws described in the article. So it's not a very effective system.
- MaysonL 14y ago</sarcasm> There: fixed that for you. (And for the lurkers who might get the idea you were serious).