NYT: Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

[sc94597]

Aielyn said:

sc94597 said:
You misunderstand the constitution. It doesn't give anybody any rights. It recognizes the already inherent rights of the people when in the process of giving the federal government power. The issue was that the Articles of Confederation didn't work in unifying the states, but rather acted to enable divergent interests. The constitution was meant to provide a federal system which would make certain things more efficient, such as a unified international relationship or unified finances. Hence, the constitution is the basis for federal law. It is the contract between the states, whom the people gave power to represent them, with each other to form a federal system. In order for the federal government to get more power, IT MUST, do it through the constitution and ask for it from the sovereign power - the people. Then all people, as represented by their politicians, must agree on these changes, because it affects ALL people, and we don't live in a direct democracy or mob rule - which never works in large populations. So the ammendment to own guns represents the more fundamental right to self-defence, and it is something inherent to the people, not something the federal government can control, as the federal government is not th sovereign power, but the people are.

As for the published article, the problem is that a power was given to the state government by the people that shouldn't have been given, and it was a mistake. Hence, they wish to take back that power. Nothing is wrong with that, as it's thepeople's right to give and take whichever powers they want from their governments.

The constitution might be outdated, and if that's the case, a new one must be  written - otherwise a repealment of the entire constitution will be a repealment of the federal government, as it's the basic document which created the federal government.

I don't misunderstand the constitution at all. But I think you misunderstand the difference between the mythology of your nation's laws and the actuality of it. It's nice to think of "the right to bear arms" as some sort of "inherent right of the people", but the fact of the matter is, if it was so inherent, it wouldn't need to be written into a document. The constitution was a way to establish firm ground rules to the formation of the union, a way to protect people and states from oppression. There is no such thing as an "inalienable right", because if it was inalienable, then it would actually be impossible to remove it.

And yes, obviously a new constitution would need to be written. When I said the constitution was outdated, I mean the specific one, not constitutions in general. And along the way, yes, there'd need to be a dissolution of the federal government, temporarily.

I didn't say (or mean if I did say it)  "the right to bear arms" is inherent, it's just the only means to secure the inherent right to self-defence. It was considered a duty by the government, and the right to own property of any kind is also an inherent right. So it's two-fold and compacted.  Also the distinction between a right and privelege must be made. A person can survive happily without the realization of priveleges. This is not the same for rights. They're inherent, because all people are entitled to them and strive for them. This is including things like  liberty, freedom, life, property, happiness, etc, etc. Without them, the government isn't acting in the interests of the entire people, but rather some majority or even minority, and should be abolished. Privileges on the otherhand are given by the government to enable certain freedoms more efficiently. An example would be taxing to build roads and transportation, or funding research. This is the debate of negative vs. positive liberty. Both are important, but without negative liberties people will have less freedom to make their lives better through their own actions and are dependent on government to change things, which is bad because the goverment isn't as efficient nor as interested in everyone's problems. While positive liberties are advantages, yes, but certainly one can live a happy life without them, yet they're necessary for structural improvement. One shouldn't have to give up negative liberties to obtain positive liberties, and that is important to understand.

And it is impossible to remove these rights. The government can take the means to "self-defence" such as guns, but they can't take the urge of all human beings to pursue it. They can take the means to free-speech and freedom of expression, but they can't take the urge of all human beings to pursue it. It's this pursuit that makes it an inalienable right. Tyrannical governments ignore this fact and take away the means to realize these rights, but they don't take away the human despair which comes with this oppression. This isn't even a debate in the United States, so it isn't a problem. 

edit: The last paragraph is substantiated by the absence of outright slavery in free societies, by the way. It was learned that slaves always rebel.