The Bill of Rights

[redeye]

A few questions for discussion:

Which rights, freedoms, and liberties should a bill of rights include?
Which rights, freedoms, and liberties should a bill of rights specifically exclude, with or without explciitly mentioning their exclusion?
Are social rights such as the right to free health care and education bill-of-rights rights or merely legal rights?

[mb7588a]

1. Go to the library

I don't think we want to do your homework for you...

[redeye]

2. What?

I'm trying to stimulate a discussion, that's all.

[bowens43]

3. Read the Amendments to the US Constitution.

They got it pretty much right the first time.

[redeye]

5. Oh, I see

So, in other words, the following do not deserve to be on any bill of rights:

Universal voting rights
Freedom of information
Freedom of association
Initiative/referendum/recall provisions
Equal rights udner the law, as in an extended ERA
Freedom of thought
Right to abort
Explicit right to privacy
Explicit right over one's body
A requirement that the government protect the above rights

[azrak]

4. YES!

"Free speech for the dumb"

[zoidberg]

6. I'll play

I think the first two people misread your question.

My Bill of Rights would include and clarify the rights currently found in the Constitution. It would only include legal rights. I'd add an explicit right to reproductive privacy. I'd exclude campaign contributions as a form of protected speech. Every law abiding adult would have the right to carry guns.

I have a real problem with social rights. There is no way to guarantee health care and education for everyone. While these are worthy policy goals, laws of scarcity dictate that it won't always be possible give people economic entitlments. These would be quite worthless. Giving people a right to healthcare would be no more meaningful than giving everyone a right to a million dollars.

[gottaB]

9. I'll play too

"laws of scarcity" should not be reified. They're useful abstractions for talking economics, but their application and interpretation are contestable. That's not a good enough foundation for deciding what to include in exclude from a charter of government.

In a pure sense, there's no way to guarantee for example freedom of expression or due process to everybody. We know that from reading history or the daily news. If you adhere to the notion that the Constitution represents an evolving understanding of how our republic ought to work, then you would be inlcined to accept that a measure of eternal vigilance is required to safeguard our fundamental rights. A guarantee of rights is only meaningful to the extent that citizens are free to and capable of defending their rights.

Questions: Does lack of universal single-payer health care coverage diminish our capacity for full participatory democracy? Education? If a citizen's ability to engage with government is hindered by social and economic disadvantages, isn't that a concern for a democratic goverment? And if a government does clearly have the means of providing for health care and education and other social services, isn't it irresponsible to withhold them?

I had been disdainful of Sharpton's calls for Constitutional amendments, but as I think about it, he has a good point. We should talk about these things.

[Clete]

7. Social rights definitely, not legal rights.

All the industrialized countries of the world have rights to health care, education, child care and retirement written into their constitutions. Many of these countries have GNP's that are a fraction of ours and yet they are able to provide for these programs. I am sure that the reason our corporate masters don't want them here is because there would be less tax money left for them to steal from the taxpayer.

[sybylla]

8. Al Sharpton wants to make three amendments

* THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC EDUCATION OF EQUAL HIGH QUALITY AMENDMENT
* THE RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE OF EQUAL HIGH QUALITY AMENDMENT
* THE RIGHT TO VOTE AMENDMENT
http://www.al2004.org/amendments.htm

This isn't something I've thought about until I saw his proposed amendments. I have always had a problem with tampering too much with the constitution. But I have to agree with him. I would also add the right to privacy.

I agree the founding fathers did very well on their first try. Fortunately even they realized that it wasn't a perfect document and admitted that as society evolved there may need to be changes. They never would have allowed for amendments otherwise.