TW: I hear frequently perhaps increasingly folks like Limbaugh and Cheney pontificating about their desire to "protect the Constitution" and "abide the Constitution". But similiar to many fundamentalist religionists, who do the same with the Bible and Koran, they are extremely selective in which parts of said Constitution they wish to protect and abide. I thought I would pull up the Bill of Rights as a measure of their devotion, upon review they really only care about a couple of those initial amendments, the others not so much.
From the U.S. Constitution:
Amendment I 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.
TW: other than their messianic zeal to avoid a "fairness doctrine", they do not really worry too much about this one and would obviously be happier with more not less (Judeo-Christian)religion integrated into our governance.
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
TW: They certainly care hugely about this one.
Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
TW: Never discussed.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
TW: They care not so much.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
TW: They care not so much.
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public 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 the 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.
TW: They care not so much.
Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
TW: They care not so much.
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
TW: Never discussed
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
TW: They care not so much.
Amendment X 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.
TW: The ole state rights, coming to the fore a bit recently with those governors wanting to grandstand on the stimulus and usually the same states wanting to nullify federal stem cell research guidelines.
TW: So there you have it #2 and #10. Otherwise...not...so...much.
6 comments:
Beg to differ...
The key distinction Conservatives make is between citizens and non-citizens.
They argue that constitutional protections should not be extended beyond American citizens or "enemies" if you will. Other than that, I think the general idea is that conservatives are in favor of limited government with limited power to tyranize, which is in consistent with most of the amendments you think Rush et al don't care about.
X,
Good to see u back.
"differentiate between Americans and everyone else", am assuming this goes to Guantanomo and the torture policies of Bush/Cheney/Hannity et al.
Is Obama et al. saying make the suspects Americans, no. Just not to torture them etc.
Re tyranny, everyone always ways to claim that mantle, it is not so simple. Your tyrannies and mine likely differ.
I wasn't thinking torture so much as detention.
Do you think terrorists captured abroad on the battlefield deserve access to the US civil court system, and all the consititutional protections that come with that access? If so, why? If not, what "rights" do you think they deserve and what don't they deserve?
It's a thorny issue, and I tend to come down on the side of "lock 'em in a cave in Afghanistan and then throw a grenade in".
X,
Nice.
You use the term "terrorists" rather broadly (as is the want of many on the right). Folks detained under suspicison deserve treatment consistent with international law. How that plays out exactly as non-combatants v. combatants is beyond my legal knowledge.
I will say that A) I vehmently disagree with torture (u and I have been around and around on this since about 2002), B) my suspicion is that the vast majority of our detainees are not "terrorists" in the connotative sense of a Bin-laden et al. and we should act accordingly and C) tossing grenades in caves full of detainees while presumably retributive at some level is in fact barbaric behavior (but I state the obivous).
Such a cop out answer. Our gov't has been wrestling with the question of how to handle "enemy combatants" since 2001 and you're saying that you can't offer an opinion because it's beyond your legal knowledge?
You're a blogger, you're supposed to offer opinions!
Btw, the grenade part wasn't to be taken seriously as my answer to the enemy combatant question. Though there probably isn't much difference between that and dropping a 500lb bomb on someone's head or even giving a "unconverted ally" a bayonet to the gut. War's pretty damn barbaric from start to finish.
X,
Call them either non-combantants or combantants depending on the circumstances then abide international law. My answer related to the distinctions between the two types. But pick one or the other for each person.
This means no torture and no making up the friggin' rules as you go along regardless of our Constitution. This is not really that complicated or ambiguous. We have plenty of laws and means by which to adjudicate them. Bush/Cheney chose to blow off many and make up their own stuff.
Post a Comment