Question of intent

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This comes from a question that came up in my mind in contemplation of the issues in the most recent gay marriage thread. While it's an offshoot of that discussion, my question isn't about gay marriage at all, so I started this thread....

OK...

So, if we can agree - and I think we can - that the founding fathers were highly mistrustful of Government and even went as far as to include a bill of rights with the Constitution why all the hostility to protection from that very same government by the right?

I guess what I'm getting at is, we can fairly say that because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights with our Constitution, our founders (as a group, even if not as individuals) found the protection of individual rights paramount. Likewise, I think it's reasonable to believe that one of the benefits of our particular Constitution and system of Government is that our founders didn't think they knew everything and left it open and subject to change - for the law of the land to accomodate later what they didn't think of then.

And.... what troubles me, I suppose, is how the Right is so universally (it seems) against ever adapting to the present as it concerns the law.

I'll leave it at that and see what sort of discussion develops, though I'm not sure I'm really asking my question as clearly as I would like.

[BayBuck]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

And.... what troubles me, I suppose, is how the Right is so universally (it seems) against ever adapting to the present as it concerns the law.

I don't think "the Right" is quite so Luddite as you suggest here -- there are other ways of "adapting to the present" that don't involve relativist compromising of traditional moral stances and liberal expansion of rights and protected classes, i.e. dealing with ever-changing technology and larger geopolitical sea changes -- but I do agree that a conservative stance does tend to be more satisfied with the status quo, and a conservative reading of the law tends to prefer a fixed meaning or interpretation as opposed to a constantly shifting one.

And surely much of the Right has the opposite concern about the Left, wondering why it is so universally against ever leaving well enough alone and is always coming up with new complaints and injustices that need to be addressed through rewritings and reimaginings of the existing law.

But of course these are fundamental differences that have always existed between conservative and liberal folk, and it would probably be a lot easier to find a common ground if these differences were more often (by both sides) respected and not addressed in an antagonistic or patronizing manner.

[Buckeye86]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

I guess what I'm getting at is, we can fairly say that because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights with our Constitution, our founders (as a group, even if not as individuals) found the protection of individual rights paramount.

Actually the Bill of Rights was a compromise made by the Federalists to the Anti-Federalists. They were split on it's inclusion, with the Federalists not wanting it at all.

Anti-Federalists were state's rights people who did not like a strong central government, so they demanded the Bill of Rights to protect them from it. The Federalists, on the other hand, were all about a strong central government.

Also, as far as the protection of individual rights being paramount, the due process clause is a bitch.

This part of the fifth amendment is rather famous

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property

the end of that sentence (the due process clause) is often forgotten

without due process of law

so with due process of the law, the government can do whatever the hell they want, it's a pretty sweet set up considering the government determines what due process of the law is.

The system of checks and balances has done a good job keeping the government from crushing individual rights (for the most part), but the Bush administration is giving us a sample of what could happen if the government decided that they didn't want to respect a particular group of people's rights (in this case "enemy combatants" but lets not get into that discussion).

President ignores individual rights, Supreme Court strikes them down, Congress gives them retroactive immunity, bye bye individual rights.

The Japanese concentration camps during WW2 is another good example of when the system doesn't work.

I'm not saying that individual rights are not important, but there sure are a lot of loopholes in the Constitution that can and have been used to crush rights.

Individual rights is a messy area of law, if it wasn't the Supreme Court wouldn't hear so many cases involving them. Disputing the application of the Bill of Rights to certain groups of people has a long history in the United States, but gradually those problems have been overcome (13th, 14th, 15th, 19th Amendments) with people kicking and screaming against them every stop of the way.

In terms of gay rights, I think Bush and his team sensed that the tables are turning against them, which is why they tried to introduce an amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. Very soon a majority of Americans will accept gay marriage, but with an amendment it would take a very long time before it would be recognized by law (since another amendment would be needed to strike down the first, which are very hard to pass, as Bush found out).

The fact that it takes a long time for laws to change is a good thing, stability in law is essential. It sucks for the groups that the law is not applied equally too, but eventually it will be, and it seems to me like that time is getting close for homosexuals in the United States.

I'm not really sure if I answered anything, but those are my thoughts.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by BayBuck

I don't think "the Right" is quite so Luddite as you suggest here -- there are other ways of "adapting to the present" that don't involve relativist compromising of traditional moral stances and liberal expansion of rights and protected classes, i.e. dealing with ever-changing technology and larger geopolitical sea changes -- but I do agree that a conservative stance does tend to be more satisfied with the status quo, and a conservative reading of the law tends to prefer a fixed meaning or interpretation as opposed to a constantly shifting one.

Well, it does seem to be a rally cry of the right to "go back to an easier time" or whatever (I'm thinking Bob Dole for example) and not the left so it is as much like any group of British workers between 1811 and 1816 as anything else

The way I see it, though, I don't see the left as requiring "unprincipled" change or change just for the sake of change. I mean, and this gets back the gay marriage issue by way of the example, all the "left" is asking for is that all men be treated equal, not that we let people get away with absurd and ridiculous things. So, and maybe it's just the way I conceptualize the world, it just seems to me the right is always (overstatement) reluctant to give people equality... and I find that troubling.

I understand what you say about "other ways to change" things (ie amendment) but, as someone mentioned on the Gay marriage thread, when we're dealing with the mistreatment of a minority, the chances of that change are not realistic.

And surely much of the Right has the opposite concern about the Left, wondering why it is so universally against ever leaving well enough alone and is always coming up with new complaints and injustices that need to be addressed through rewritings and reimaginings of the existing law.

I suppose that's true enough. But, as I mention above, it seems to me noble for a man like myself - a "majority" member if you will (That is, I'm white, male, heterosexual, etc.) - to fight for the rights of others when they are being [censored]ed over. In my limited view of the world, I see Righties take such a similar stance when it comes to rich people's money (Taxes) but not a homosexual's right to be free from mistreatment by the State.

I'm not saying all Righties are this way, I'm just saying what my perception of them is.... what I view the typical righty as thinking... and these perceptions are born of observation and not just something I'm making up out of the whole cloth. Again, that shouldn't be read as me saying "I'm right about Righties" but that I didn't come to this opinion of Righties for no reason whatever... In other words, it seems to me, whoever's in charge of the right has alienated me beyond words... and thus, even though there are Republican ideas I agree with, the idea of someone calling me a Righty is about as offensive as I can imagine. I suppose that's true with you and being called a Liberal....

But of course these are fundamental differences that have always existed between conservative and liberal folk, and it would probably be a lot easier to find a common ground if these differences were more often (by both sides) respected and not addressed in an antagonistic or patronizing manner.

Agree... I hope my question wasn't taken as antaonistic or patronizing, as that was not my intent. Just trying to get a finger on the gap between otherwise likeable people and their politics... I just don't get what makes some people tick, and I am at this point quite blind by my own vision of this twisted [censored]ed up world.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

86 - yeah, I am aware about how the BoR's came in to being which is why I mentioned the "collective" and not individual view of our "founders"

I also think your point about the "without due process of law" part is an important observation... but, then, procedural due process is a concept most laymen do not really understand as it actually is, I think. It really opens up a great many questions about what sort of process is enough process... I think it's clear a criminal trial is enough process to take away one's liberty when he committed a crime, but... other things aren't so easy a call....