I kind of half-watched Charlie Rose’s interview last night with Antonin Scalia. Basically, Scalia explained his way of interpreting the Constitution, which he calls ‘Originalism’. Broken down to brass tacks, Originalism is an effort to interpret what the Constitution meant to the people that wrote it when they wrote it. I obviously think this is a moronically self-restricting way to interpret the Constitution but it has one merit. It pays a lot of attention to what the Founding Fathers had to say about things. And, if there is one really serious shortcoming of the Democratic Party, it is its failure to utilize the wisdom of the Founding Fathers when it goes about justifying its policies.
I don’t want a kind of Lockean form of Shari’a Law or anything. I don’t want people to cite the Founding Fathers chapter and verse to justify what they do, but I want people to understand much better than they do now why the Founding Fathers set up our system of government the way they set it up. When I read tripe like Jeff Stein’s article on Europeans’ tolerance for a surveillance state it makes me want to grab him by the lapels and ask him if he’s ever read Tom Paine. This country was founded on getting away from Princes and Kings and their ‘official religions’. This country rebelled against the censoring of our mail and press, the compulsory stationing of troops in our homes, and against arbitrary arrest and sham trials. We are not like Europe for a reason. When it comes to liberty, we should never look to Europe and say ‘Look, they have less of it than we do, what’s our problem?’
This is basic.
“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered…staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” -George Washington
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” -John Adams
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” -Thomas Paine
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” -Samuel Adams
This is the American creed, and it should shock no one that it isn’t as deeply embedded in European culture. Right now, I wish the Democratic Party would engage in a little Originalism in protecting our privacy rights.
Gary Trauner sounds like a Founding Father.
Dearest Booman,
I think everyone—including myself—understands that words are, and have always been, CHEAP.
We all know that. Words are cheap.
Please, I beg you, do not speak to me about respect for the founding “fathers”.
This is the American creed, and it should shock no one that it isn’t as deeply embedded in European culture.
We haven’t had an elected government for almost eight years now! And you say that liberty is more deeply embedded in American than European culture. That is nothing but American chauvinism, which infects many on the left no less than it does right-wing nuts.
When European governments did away with liberty, they had to use the threat of physical force (e.g., arrest for political activities). Our government takes liberty away from the people with nothing more than propaganda and infotainment.
European governments don’t even aspire to our level of liberty, Alexander. Yes, they have better social safety nets, but they also have nothing approaching our expectation of privacy. Don’t conflate election rigging with Constitutional law.
America remains the freest of all nations when it comes to expression and privacy. That’s what I’m fighting to maintain.
It’s possible that Americans have a higher expectation of privacy, but I believe that it’s fairly well recognized that Europeans today have more actual privacy than Americans do. And the relevant distinction here is not between American and Europe, but between the US-UK on the one side and continental Europe on the other.
Just look at the map of Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World 2007 put out by Privacy International. As you will notice, the US and UK get categorized as “Endemic surveillance societies”, whereas all western European countries are classified as offering more privacy. It is not a coincidence that Jeremy Bentham, with his infamous Panopticon, was an Englishman. Consistently with that, it was the British who invented concentration camps, that institution offering its residents very little privacy indeed.
With respect to freedom expression on the other hand, you’re probably right. And I very much appreciate your fighting to maintain these things.
Sorry. I had thought that Steven had written this piece, not you. I don’t consider you to be someone “on the left”, but in the “pragmatic center”.
Sorry, but this is one thing I totally disagree with.
Netherlands – Constitution
{ Adopted on: 17 Feb 1983 }
{ ICL Document Status: 1989 }
Chapter 1 Fundamental Rights
Article 1 [Equality]
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.
Article 2 [Citizenship]
(1) Dutch nationality shall be regulated by Act of Parliament.
(2) The admission and expulsion of aliens shall be regulated by Act of Parliament.
(3) Extradition may take place only pursuant to a treaty. Further regulations concerning extradition shall be laid down by Act of Parliament.
(4) Everyone shall have the right to leave the country, except in the cases laid down by Act of Parliament.
Article 3 [Eligibility Right]
All Dutch nationals shall be equally eligible for appointment to public service.
Article 4 [Right to Vote]
Every Dutch national shall have an equal right to elect the members of the general representative bodies and to stand for election as a member of those bodies, subject to the limitations and exceptions prescribed by Act of Parliament.
Article 5 [Petitions]
Everyone shall have the right to submit petitions in writing to the competent authorities.
Article 6 [Religion, Belief]
(1) Everyone shall have the right to manifest freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law.
(2) Rules concerning the exercise of this right other than in buildings and enclosed places may be laid down by Act of Parliament for the protection of health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders.
Article 7 [Expression]
(1) No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.
(2) Rules concerning radio and television shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. There shall be no prior supervision of the content of a radio or television broadcast.
(3) No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals.
(4) The preceding paragraphs do not apply to commercial advertising.
Article 8 [Association]
The right of association shall be recognized. This right may be restricted by Act of Parliament in the interest of public order.
Article 9 [Assembly]
(1) The right of assembly and demonstration shall be recognized, without prejudice to the responsibility of everyone under the law.
(2) Rules to protect health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders may be laid down by Act of Parliament.
Article 10 [Privacy]
(1) Everyone shall have the right to respect for his privacy, without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.
(2) Rules to protect privacy shall be laid down by Act of Parliament in connection with the recording and dissemination of personal data.
(3) Rules concerning the rights of persons to be informed of data recorded concerning them and of the use that is made thereof, and to have such data corrected shall be laid down by Act of Parliament.
Article 11 [Personal Integrity]
Everyone shall have the right to inviolability of his person, without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.
Article 12 [Home]
(1) Entry into a home against the will of the occupant shall be permitted only in the cases laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament, by those designated for the purpose by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.
(2) Prior identification and notice of purpose shall be required in order to enter a home under the preceding paragraph, subject to the exceptions prescribed by Act of Parliament. A written report of the entry shall be issued to the occupant.
Article 13 [Secrecy of Communication]
(1) The privacy of correspondence shall not be violated except, in the cases laid down by Act of Parliament, by order of the courts.
(2) The privacy of the telephone and telegraph shall not be violated except, in the cases laid down by Act of Parliament, by or with the authorization of those designated for the purpose by Act of Parliament.
Article 14 [Property]
(1) Expropriation may take place only in the public interest and on prior assurance of full compensation, in accordance with regulations laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.
(2) Prior assurance of full compensation shall not be required if in an emergency immediate expropriation is called for.
(3) In the cases laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament there shall be a right to full or partial compensation if in the public interest the competent authority destroys property or renders it unusable or restricts the exercise of the owner’s rights to it.
Article 15 [Personal Liberty, Arrest]
(1) Other than in the cases laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament, no one may be deprived of his liberty.
(2) Anyone who has been deprived of his liberty other than by order of a court may request a court to order his release. In such a case he shall be heard by the court within a period to be
laid down by Act of Parliament. The court shall order his immediate release if it considers the deprivation of liberty to be unlawful.
(3) The trial of a person who has been deprived of his liberty pending trial shall take place within a reasonable period.
(4) A person who has been lawfully deprived of his liberty may be restricted in the exercise of fundamental rights in so far as the exercise of such rights is not compatible with the deprivation of liberty.
Article 16 [Nulla Poena Sine Lege]
No offence shall be punishable unless it was an offence under the law at the time it was committed.
Article 17 [Right to be Heard]
No one may be prevented against his will from being heard by the courts to which he is entitled to apply under the law.
Article 18 [Right to Counsel]
(1) Everyone may be legally represented in legal and administrative proceedings.
(2) Rules concerning the granting of legal aid to persons of limited means shall be laid down by Act of Parliament.
Article 19 [Work]
(1) It shall be the concern of the authorities to promote the provision of sufficient employment.
(2) Rules concerning the legal status and protection of working persons and concerning co-determination shall be laid down by Act of Parliament.
(3) The right of every Dutch national to a free choice of work shall be recognized, without prejudice to the restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.
Article 20 [Welfare]
(1) It shall be the concern of the authorities to secure the means of subsistence of the population and to achieve the distribution of wealth.
(2) Rules concerning entitlement to social security shall be laid down by Act of Parliament.
(3) Dutch nationals resident in the Netherlands who are unable to provide for themselves shall have a right, to be regulated by Act of Parliament, to aid from the authorities.
Article 21 [Environment]
It shall be the concern of the authorities to keep the country habitable and to protect and improve the environment.
Article 22 [Health]
(1) The authorities shall take steps to promote the health of the population.
(2) It shall be the concern of the authorities to provide sufficient living accommodation.
(3) The authorities shall promote social and cultural development and leisure activities.
Article 23 [Education]
(1) Education shall be the constant concern of the Government.
(2) All persons shall be free to provide education, without prejudice to the authorities’ right of supervision and, with regard to forms of education designated by law, its right to examine the competence and moral integrity of teachers, to be regulated by Act of Parliament.
(3) Education provided by public authorities shall be regulated by Act of Parliament, paying due respect to everyone’s religion or belief.
(4) The authorities shall ensure that primary education is provided in a sufficient number of public-authority schools in every municipality. Deviations from this provision may be permitted under rules to be established by Act of Parliament on condition that there is opportunity to receive the said form of education.
(5) The standards required of schools financed either in part or in full from public funds shall be regulated by Act of Parliament, with due regard, in the case of private schools, to the freedom to provide education according to religious or other belief.
(6) The requirements for primary education shall be such that the standards both of private schools fully financed from public funds and of public-authority schools are fully guaranteed. The relevant provisions shall respect in particular the freedom of private schools to choose their teaching aids and to appoint teachers as they see fit.
(7) Private primary schools that satisfy the conditions laid down by Act of Parliament shall be financed from public funds according to the same standards as public-authority schools. The conditions under which private secondary education and pre-university education shall receive contributions from public funds shall be laid down by Act of Parliament.
(8) The Government shall submit annual reports on the state of education to the Parliament.
Until we get here….
Dude-
you just proved my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
There is no restriction on Parliament’s right to pass laws that invade your privacy and monitor your communications. Compare that crap to this:
One is Europe’s idea of inalienable rights, and one is America’s. I’ll take the latter.
No your flat wrong.
without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.
In many common law jurisdictions the basic meaning of `Without Prejudice’ is ‘without loss of any rights’ meaning an act of parliament may not impede that right in whatever law it passes.
Also take into account that is a Dutch/English translation of the document.
so does Scalia support the return of slavery? 5/9s humans?
disenfranchisement of women?
probably, he just uses his theory as an excuse to twist the constitution to his own personal beliefs. Otherwise, the right to bear arms would be limited to those arms/guns which were available in 1789—a musket, a pouch of gun powder, and a ball bearing–I see no room for an Uzi, in Scalia’s constitutional theory.
i wouldn’t blame trotsky for the bushies
Many neocons were ex-Trotskyists:
Here I have to agree with Booman: the neocons utter inability to understand why liberty is an important human value shows that their ideology comes from utterly non-American sources.
Just to explain a little further. The Trotskyites were communists who believed in world revolution. Stalin, who wanted to concentrate most efforts on building the USSR, persecuted them. Trotsky himself was assassinated on Stalin’s order. So the Trotskyites had every reason to hate Stalin and indeed the Soviet Union, at least as it was. One particular wing of Trotskyites, under Max Schachtman, went so far as to see the Soviet Union as the greatest danger to “the revolution.” As the United States emerged after WW2 as the greatest counterforce to the USSR, they allied themselves with the militantly anti-soviet side of the Democratic Party, especially those around “Scoop” Jackson, with the CIA, etc. As time went by, they went still further to the right and most became Republicans. I would put it like this: in terms of strategy, tactics, “ethics”, even goal (“world revolution” in some weird sense never dreamt of by Trotsky), they still think like Trotskyites. In terms of actual issues, at least on anything to do with foreign policy or the domestic connections of foreign policy, they are right-wing militarists and war profiteers. In any case, the Constitution means nothing to them.
thx for the rehash. i understand (and knew) all that. what i was responding to is this broad brush approach which seeks to identify them with marxism. it seems to me, though, that their anti-soviet concerns trumped any commitment to socialism. in that sense, they were neither Trotskyites, Leninists, Fabians, or any other brand of socialists. they were certainly not social democrats.
On a slightly different but related Constitutional matter, habeas corpus, torture and detainee rights:
Ran into a neighbor last night when I was out walking my dog. I greet her warily now, with a mostly insincere smile. When we spoke several weeks ago, we got on the subject of politics and she said that she didn’t bother following it. Then she said something that made my hair stand on end:
“I don’t want to know what the government is doing.”
From her affect and tone of voice, I believe she was referring to torture and the treatment of detainees, but I was too nonplussed to follow up. I’d like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but other comments she has made make me realize that I probably shouldn’t. She almost certainly meant it the way I first heard it.
She is from an educated, upper-middle class family populated with school teachers and business-people. She lives in a blue state. What in the world could make her believe such a thing?
Incidents like these make me better understand how Nazism was able to flourish in a modern, western European nation. Too many people evidently have an “inner fascist” just aching to burst forth, sort’ve like in the movie Alien with Signourey Weaver, in the gruesome scene when the aliens burst out of the guts of the trapped human hosts. Only these real-life closet Nazis are more horrifying than any scary movie ever could be. Talk about the banality of evil…
She probably thinks that torture works and the government is torturing people to save her from a future 9-11.
That belief needs to countered outright. People need to understand that rather than protecting us, torture is both ineffective and that by torturing thousands of foreigners (and US citizens) they are creating thousands of militants (their friends and families) determined to get even with the USA.
I agree. This mindset is hard to counter because so many people accept it as an article of faith and that belief is reinforced in the echo chamber of the right-wing noise machine which I bet my bippy she is totally hooked into.
No bet there!
They Thought They Were Free
Arguably we’re overlooking some of the Founding Fathers who had the first demoracy on our shores and abided by the “Great Law of Peace” (no not Kucinch’s platform). This is a fascinating read
Call no man on earth “Father”.
just the Sky Gods?