Constitution

It's a free country

A commonly heard mantra is, "Read your Constitution - it's a free country, you know!" Well, read your Constitution - it never says it is a free country. The implication of the aphorism is that in the United States, you can do whatever you want to do, and the Constitution is there to ensure that. It is certainly true that the Constitution protects many civil rights. The 1st Amendment ensures freedom of religious choice and freedom of speech, but those things are not without limit. You cannot create a religion that allows you to kill someone without civil punishment; you cannot use libelous or slanderous words without recourse. There are other things that restrict freedom - from the ability to suspend habeas corpus to the issuance of patents. Certainly the United States is a very free country, but it is not totally free - which is actually a good thing, unless you actually like anarchy. It is interesting to note that in his confirmation hearings in 2005, John Roberts said several times, "It's a free country." It will be interesting to see how this enters into his judicial philosophy on the Court.

Thanks to John Powers and Brad Cottel for the idea.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

November 1, 2005 Detainees at Gitmo showing desperation (Washington Post via Houston Chronicle): "Jum'ah Dossari had to visit the restroom, so the detainee made a quick joke with his American lawyer before military police guards escorted him to a nearby cell with a toilet. The U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had taken quite a toll on Dossari over the past four years, but his attorney, who was there to discuss Dossari's federal court case, noted his good spirits and thought nothing of his bathroom break. Minutes later, when Dossari did not return, Joshua Colangelo-Bryan knocked on the cell door, calling out his client's name....The lawyer looked up to see Dossari hanging unconscious from a noose tied to the ceiling, his eyes rolled back, his tongue and lips bulging, blood pouring from a gash in his right arm. Dossari's suicide attempt two weeks ago is believed to be the first such event witnessed by an outsider at the prison, and one of several signs that lawyers and human-rights advocates contend point to growing desperation among more than 500 detainees there." Lady Liberty says: So...are rights unalienable? Those of us who love freedom know full well the answer to that question. Unfortunately, it's just as obvious that our government is denying that there's any such thing. [ back to news headlines ]

October 27, 2005 Terror Suspect Takes Case to High Court (AP via MyWay.com): "'Dirty bomb' suspect Jose Padilla has asked the Supreme Court to limit the government's power to hold him and other U.S. terror suspects indefinitely and without charges. The case of Padilla, who has been in custody more than three years, presents a major test of the Bush administration's wartime authority. The former gang member is accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive device. Justices refused on a 5-4 vote last year to resolve Padilla's rights, ruling that he contested his detention in the wrong court. Donna Newman of New York, one of Padilla's attorneys, said the new case, which was being processed at the court Thursday, asks when and for how long the government can jail people in military prisons." Lady Liberty says: She agrees that prisoners of war can be held for the duration of a conflict. But Padilla is accused of a crime, and deserves to be tried. The fact he's not being held on US soil has absolutely nothing to do with unalianable rights! [ back to news headlines ]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

November 8, 2005 Seceding seldom succeeds, but Vermonters try (The Christian Science Monitor): "Politics, like fall foliage, turns faster in Vermont. The state was out front opposing slavery and first to approve civil unions. And if the activists who met here last month succeed, the state will set another precedent: first to secede since 1861. No, this wasn't a clandestine meeting of militants. It was a convention for Vermonters, held in the plush, gold-domed capitol. And its keynote - that separating from the United States is a just remedy for the federal government's trampling of state sovereignty - is echoing beyond the snow-capped Green Mountains." Lady Liberty says: Given the repeated and ongoing abuses of states' rights in recent years, she doesn't blame these folks a bit and, in fact, thinks they've got a pretty good idea. [ back to news headlines ]

One of the most contentious points

in the formation of a Federal government came from the individual states. The states didn't want to lose the ability to make regional decisions nor to be subject to an overriding power from a distant national capital. The Tenth Amendment was written to reassure the states that they would remain largely in charge within their own borders. Until the mid-19th century, the Tenth Amendment was often cited by state governments to prevent Federal regulation of everything from taxation to interstate commerce. Since 1837, however, various rulings have mitigated the perceived power of the Tenth Amendment, and such matters as a Federal income tax were subsequently upheld in the courts.

Does the Constitution still mean anything?

Posted: 2005-06-10 01:54:21

No comment(s)

Author: Phil Gengler

Section: Politics

By now, this topic has been covered a million times over in practically every other corner