Okay, let's spend some time on the amendments. Most of them aren't lengthy, so some might be combined, and we'll just see how it goes, starting with the first.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Most of the amendments, especially in the Bill of Rights, are pretty specific in their focus. This one treats three pretty broad topics.
I think there are a couple of ways of looking at that. One might be that if you separated them into separate amendments, the order in which they were listed could be interpreted as a ranking and prioritization, when the intention was to give them equal weight.
Another possibility is that the three were considered necessary for matters of conscience.
Religion was something that had been restricted by the colonies before. Quakers could be fined for not attending Puritan meetings, religious dissidents had been expelled from some communities, and yet coming to one's own religious beliefs and then practicing them is a very personal matter.
It might not appear that press and assembly would face similar threats, but a religious meeting is an assembly, the printing of religious material requires a press. If those freedoms are impinged, then religious freedom is.
Of course, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press do not need to be religious in their application, but they are also important for information, and for collaboration. The revolutionaries had not been happy with their options for petitioning the government. Their needed to be better options in place. With mass media and internet, we can accomplish a lot without being in the same space, but it is still a form of assembly. For the options that were available at the time, these safeguards make perfect sense.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Sunday, April 17, 2016
The Constitution - The Bill of Rights
I have not been sure whether I want to go over all of the amendments, and if I do, whether to do one at a time or to do them in groups. For right now I am going to punt and just write a little about the first ten and their genesis.
There Articles of Confederation were not able to keep things running smoothly when there were conflicts between individual states. The move to the Constitution accomplished that by strengthening the federal government, but not everyone was in favor of that.
Those who approved less of this centralization, notably George Mason and Elbridge Gerry, wanted to include a statement of the rights of the people, or a Bill of Rights, and there was some bitter contention about this.
It makes sense for the time. They had just rebelled against king and country for freedom, and now they were strengthening this new government, when they had meant for the strength to be in the people. The Constitution described how the government would run, but not in what direction.
It may be helpful to think of the Bill of Rights as the check for the people. The Legislative can make laws or fail laws, the Executive can propose and veto laws, and the Judicial can interpret and overturn laws, and the citizens participate by voting, but also there is a statement of rights. The laws can't go in some directions, because that would be too much of an attack upon liberty.
It was not even immediately agreed upon that the principles in the Bill of Rights affected state laws, as they were originally only applied to federal laws, but that has evolved too. Usually when we speak of constitutional rights, we are referring to the first addition to the Constitution.
And it matters that these apply to state laws, because usually whenever people start talking about state's rights, some state is wanting to abuse someone else. Historically that has been the case over and over again. It would appear that the states have enough rights to treat their residents fairly.
If we do go over all of the amendments, that might be something that comes up.
There Articles of Confederation were not able to keep things running smoothly when there were conflicts between individual states. The move to the Constitution accomplished that by strengthening the federal government, but not everyone was in favor of that.
Those who approved less of this centralization, notably George Mason and Elbridge Gerry, wanted to include a statement of the rights of the people, or a Bill of Rights, and there was some bitter contention about this.
It makes sense for the time. They had just rebelled against king and country for freedom, and now they were strengthening this new government, when they had meant for the strength to be in the people. The Constitution described how the government would run, but not in what direction.
It may be helpful to think of the Bill of Rights as the check for the people. The Legislative can make laws or fail laws, the Executive can propose and veto laws, and the Judicial can interpret and overturn laws, and the citizens participate by voting, but also there is a statement of rights. The laws can't go in some directions, because that would be too much of an attack upon liberty.
It was not even immediately agreed upon that the principles in the Bill of Rights affected state laws, as they were originally only applied to federal laws, but that has evolved too. Usually when we speak of constitutional rights, we are referring to the first addition to the Constitution.
And it matters that these apply to state laws, because usually whenever people start talking about state's rights, some state is wanting to abuse someone else. Historically that has been the case over and over again. It would appear that the states have enough rights to treat their residents fairly.
If we do go over all of the amendments, that might be something that comes up.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
The Constitution - Articles V, VI, and VII
The next and final three articles are all pretty short, and can easily be treated together.
This is where we get into the housekeeping issues. Articles I, II, and III laid out the branches of government pretty smoothly, and Article IV reminded us of how the states fit in together, but is that enough to keep the union going, and if not how do we adjust for that?
Article V - The process for amending the Constitution is set forth, with how to start the process and how much support is needed, with the caveat that these new amendments cannot disenfranchise any state. (There was also a time limit put on for certain tax issues from Article I, that they could not be changed before 1808.)
Article VI - This article starts off saying that any debts accrued by the country before the Constitution were still valid. On the surface this looks simple, as a confirmation that this new Constitution is a strengthening continuation, not a disruption. The nation's word and bond are good.
It seems odd, then, that right after that we read that the Constitution shall be "the supreme Law of the Land". Other laws and treaties are made in accordance with it, and judges are bound by it. It feels like that has already been implied, or that maybe this clause should have come earlier.
I like to think of it as a part of coming to the conclusion. We have worked on this. We believe it is good, and solid, even though we know we have limitations, which is why we just had an article about amending it. Still, this will take precedence. This is that guide that will help us weigh things correctly. Placed where it is, the Supremacy Clause appears to me as a vote of confidence it what had been accomplished.
As part of that, elected representatives will be bound by an oath of affirmation to the Constitution, but it also states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Back when I first read the Constitution as part of history class (so 1989) I remember seeing that the Constitution did not really go over American values. Those come in the Bill of Rights, and that the first ten amendments came in that form, coming out with the Constitution, shows that the framers felt including these values were important. Nonetheless, the articles themselves are very focused on the nuts and bolts of governance.
We get freedom of religion in the First Amendment, so we know it's important there, but also here we have it. It's not just that citizens can have their religious freedom, but that a religious test will never be required for serving in government. That was important, and it needed to be clear.
Article VII - This sets forth the process for ratifying the Constitution. It was a one-time need, and probably by the time most people could read it, the ratification was already past, but it confirms that the care that went into the process, and that the support of the majority would be required.
These could easily be viewed as the most boring of the Articles - though VI has come up in a few cases - but together they show the conscientiousness and the care that went into making the document.
The United States was still a very young country, and they had already learned from mistakes. In previous posts we have covered the mistakes that they were still making, but there were also things that were being done well, and these can be admired.
This is where we get into the housekeeping issues. Articles I, II, and III laid out the branches of government pretty smoothly, and Article IV reminded us of how the states fit in together, but is that enough to keep the union going, and if not how do we adjust for that?
Article V - The process for amending the Constitution is set forth, with how to start the process and how much support is needed, with the caveat that these new amendments cannot disenfranchise any state. (There was also a time limit put on for certain tax issues from Article I, that they could not be changed before 1808.)
Article VI - This article starts off saying that any debts accrued by the country before the Constitution were still valid. On the surface this looks simple, as a confirmation that this new Constitution is a strengthening continuation, not a disruption. The nation's word and bond are good.
It seems odd, then, that right after that we read that the Constitution shall be "the supreme Law of the Land". Other laws and treaties are made in accordance with it, and judges are bound by it. It feels like that has already been implied, or that maybe this clause should have come earlier.
I like to think of it as a part of coming to the conclusion. We have worked on this. We believe it is good, and solid, even though we know we have limitations, which is why we just had an article about amending it. Still, this will take precedence. This is that guide that will help us weigh things correctly. Placed where it is, the Supremacy Clause appears to me as a vote of confidence it what had been accomplished.
As part of that, elected representatives will be bound by an oath of affirmation to the Constitution, but it also states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Back when I first read the Constitution as part of history class (so 1989) I remember seeing that the Constitution did not really go over American values. Those come in the Bill of Rights, and that the first ten amendments came in that form, coming out with the Constitution, shows that the framers felt including these values were important. Nonetheless, the articles themselves are very focused on the nuts and bolts of governance.
We get freedom of religion in the First Amendment, so we know it's important there, but also here we have it. It's not just that citizens can have their religious freedom, but that a religious test will never be required for serving in government. That was important, and it needed to be clear.
Article VII - This sets forth the process for ratifying the Constitution. It was a one-time need, and probably by the time most people could read it, the ratification was already past, but it confirms that the care that went into the process, and that the support of the majority would be required.
These could easily be viewed as the most boring of the Articles - though VI has come up in a few cases - but together they show the conscientiousness and the care that went into making the document.
The United States was still a very young country, and they had already learned from mistakes. In previous posts we have covered the mistakes that they were still making, but there were also things that were being done well, and these can be admired.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
The Constitution - Article IV
The articles follow a logical order.
We start with the legislative branch, because that is how laws will be made, and then we can go forward with making laws and getting this country going. Then you cover the executive and judicial branches, rounding out the federal, but that leads us naturally into the role of the states, and then we have some housekeeping and procedural items to settle that will allow a forward motion.
Article IV is where we go over the states, and this is another clause that we sometimes hear about: the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
It doesn't matter than Pennsylvania is bigger than Rhode Island, or if New York has more money than North Carolina, they are all states and their actions will be recognized as valid by others.
That means that if you are wanted for a crime in one state and cross into another state, you can still be extradited. If you have a drivers license issued by Oregon, you can drive in Washington.
There are other things that have not been established as being included within that, because there is some ambiguity. It was not considered to apply to interracial marriages when states had different laws on those, and while there could have been cases coming up testing the clause for same-sex marriage, that fight was ended when it was approved federally.
There is also some information about the admission of new states, which helped that process go smoothly. When there were issues with that process, it would be about the Slavery question, and that rears its ugly head here too, with Section 2 specifying that a slave escaping into a another state did not mean freedom. (The insertion of this clause required some less than open reinsertion after it was struck down.) A tendency by some states to not adhere too fully to this clause gave us two Fugitive Slave Acts and the Dred Scott decision.
There is also a reinforcement of the rights of states to representation, and a protection of their property. This is significant for two reasons.
The protection of personal property has been considered an essential part of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all along. If what was yours was not yours, then how free are you? How safe are you? And perhaps how happy can you be? That in itself is fine, though certainly an overemphasis on property can impede happiness as well.
However, once we have decided - in this document and in the formation of this country - that a person can be property, then the document is compromised. It means that there in injustice built into the foundation of the nation, and that is going to lead to conflict and death and destruction.
It also means that the country has in its DNA a need and ability to be able to look at a person and see less of a person. We still haven't rooted that out.
That Article IV invokes equality and balance between the states is good, but the flaw that started in the very first Article is woven throughout the whole document.
We start with the legislative branch, because that is how laws will be made, and then we can go forward with making laws and getting this country going. Then you cover the executive and judicial branches, rounding out the federal, but that leads us naturally into the role of the states, and then we have some housekeeping and procedural items to settle that will allow a forward motion.
Article IV is where we go over the states, and this is another clause that we sometimes hear about: the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
It doesn't matter than Pennsylvania is bigger than Rhode Island, or if New York has more money than North Carolina, they are all states and their actions will be recognized as valid by others.
That means that if you are wanted for a crime in one state and cross into another state, you can still be extradited. If you have a drivers license issued by Oregon, you can drive in Washington.
There are other things that have not been established as being included within that, because there is some ambiguity. It was not considered to apply to interracial marriages when states had different laws on those, and while there could have been cases coming up testing the clause for same-sex marriage, that fight was ended when it was approved federally.
There is also some information about the admission of new states, which helped that process go smoothly. When there were issues with that process, it would be about the Slavery question, and that rears its ugly head here too, with Section 2 specifying that a slave escaping into a another state did not mean freedom. (The insertion of this clause required some less than open reinsertion after it was struck down.) A tendency by some states to not adhere too fully to this clause gave us two Fugitive Slave Acts and the Dred Scott decision.
There is also a reinforcement of the rights of states to representation, and a protection of their property. This is significant for two reasons.
The protection of personal property has been considered an essential part of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all along. If what was yours was not yours, then how free are you? How safe are you? And perhaps how happy can you be? That in itself is fine, though certainly an overemphasis on property can impede happiness as well.
However, once we have decided - in this document and in the formation of this country - that a person can be property, then the document is compromised. It means that there in injustice built into the foundation of the nation, and that is going to lead to conflict and death and destruction.
It also means that the country has in its DNA a need and ability to be able to look at a person and see less of a person. We still haven't rooted that out.
That Article IV invokes equality and balance between the states is good, but the flaw that started in the very first Article is woven throughout the whole document.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)