We are told that the Constitution is a living document with powers of adaptation that put the colorful chameleon to shame. In the spaces between its lines learned judges discover whatever meaning the times require, and if not there, then in its capacious margins. With this in mind I have ventured to update the Bill of Rights to make it answer the exigent and perverse needs of today.
- Congress shall make no law respectful of religion, or inspired by the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of blasphemers, or of pornographers; or the right of radicals riotously to assemble, or of citizens to beg pardon of the government for giving it so many grounds for grievance.
- A well stupefied populace, being necessary to the security of the managerial state, the right of the people to keep and bear intoxicants and electronic pacifiers, shall not be infringed.
- Vagrants shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house they choose to enter, without the consent of the owner, and in time of war may take possession of the house of any absent and enlisted citizen in whatever manner is most convenient to the vagrant.
- The right of the state to search and seize persons, houses, papers, and effects is absolute, and no warrants shall be required when there is political cause, supported by paid informants, or when the place may be searched, and the person or thing seized, by a private proxy of the state.
- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, until he is prejudicially pre-tried in the media, except in cases arising in law enforcement, when the media are busy vilifying someone else; nor shall any person, with the exception of white racists with bad teeth, be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any person be allowed in any criminal case to be a witness for himself, nor be possessed of life, liberty, or property, without a license from the state; nor shall public property destroyed by radical rioting be eligible for restoration.
- In all criminal prosecutions for political crimes, the media shall enjoy the right to mount a speedy and public trial of the accused, by a jury of partisan hacks, in newspapers and television programs produced thousands of miles from the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district said partisan hacks shall mock, ridicule, and defame. Participation of the accused in his own media and judicial trials is forbidden as an impediment to the efficient operation of the justice system
- In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be suspended, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be admitted in any court of the United States, as according to the New Rule of Kritarchy.
- Excessive bail shall be required, and excessive fines imposed, and cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, whenever the State Security Service identifies the offender as an insurrectionist, threat to our democracy, deplorable, or unsympathetic redneck with no friends.
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed as granting those rights to all citizens in all times and places, or to require public notice of the citizens for whom, or the times and places in which, those rights have beem suspended or abolished.
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution shall be arrogated by the United States by force when they are needed. The list of powers prohibited by it to the States shall be enlarged at the discretion of the United States and without notification to the States. Powers reserved to the people shall be exercised by their guardians in the media, Antifa, the W.T.O., and the North America Man-Boy Love Association.
The contradiction at the heart of liberalism lies in its simultaneous assertion of popular sovereignty and universal human rights.
Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,”
For “if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
Rousseau’s solution is well known: “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free – « ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre » – for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”
I read this as the fatal flaw of constitutionalism. One cannot write a constitution that will make a good government out of bad governors. Even the supposed wonder-weapon of “mixed” government is not proof against this because the monarch, the aristocrats and the commoners can go bad all together. Then one gets a government that is despotic, oligarchic and ochlocratic at the same time (i.e. anarcho-tyranny).
Consider who writes the constitution.
As the late Scalia J explained:
He summarises his position, as follows, “The minority loses, except to the extent that the majority, in its document of government, has agreed to accord the minority rights.”
My grade school teachers used to lecture us on the constitutional protections against the “tyranny of the majority.” Even then I could see that it was the good nature of the majority and not the Constitution that protected against that tyranny. The majority can be just as tyrannical as it pleases, and all with the blessing of law.
Once again, Rousseau, one of the few people, then or now, who had actually lived under a direct democracy, the canton of Geneva, puts the matter in perspective:
Pingback: Update – Zoopraxiscope
Regarding the 2A, I was told by a business owner acquaintance the other day that he had been having some difficulty managing several of his employees due to the fact that they carry their “medical marijuana” to work with them, and instead of smoking a cigarette on their breaks, they’ve formed the habit of smoking a doobie instead. This has been a common occurance on construction sites for many years in my state, dating to way before our “medical marijuana” law was passed; the difference (between then and now) being that the pothead worker bees of yesteryear were forced to try to hide their on-the-job drug abuse, and could be strongly disciplined or even fired if caught in the act. Whereas, …
Passage of our “medical marijuana” law by such a large majority in my state was proof positive to yours truly, if legalization of class-C gaming hadn’t already convinced me twenty years before, that I live in state populated and governed by utter morons!
Had it not been for the anti-federalists we might not even have the bill of rights. Pray for the resurgence of Dixie.
I have only once been “read my rights” and that was in the country of the Declaration of the Rights of Man & the Citizen. It went like this;
“The President of the Republic has declared Paris to be in a state of siege; the constitutional guarantees have been suspended; you are being detained according to the needs of public safety [pour le besoin bien entendue du salut publique]”
Since then, I have always had a rather jaundiced view of paper constitutions
As a Southern Nationalist, I’m totally with you when it comes to praying for (and working towards) a resurgence of Dixie. On the other hand, even Madison acknowledged the force of several of the (Federalist) arguments against adding a Bill of Rights to the federal Constitution. In particular, Hamilton’s insistence that to do so would be dangerous (to state and local sovereignty) by way of introducing new restrictions against powers never granted. See Federalist no. 84 in this connection. It’s true that Madison also believed he’d found a way around this difficulty with what ultimately became the 9th & 10th Amendments; but those paper barriers have proven less than useless too, over time. Sometimes it’s best to listen to your political opponents and what they know of themselves and their inability to self-restrain or self-govern. When Dixie is re-organized and re-formed, this is a thing we’ll have to take into serious consideration.