We welcome David
Swanson as a BC columnist. We have publishing his writings a number
of times in the past and look forward to what he will be writing
in the future.
Click
here to read
any of the commentaries in this series.
According to the Declaration of Independence, “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The men who put their signatures to those words sought
to endow each other with those rights, and those rights can be gained
or lost. And since that day, people around the world have imagined,
created, and struggled for a great many additional rights as well.
Our Constitution came very early in the history of
the formal establishment of individual rights. It helped to inspire
many other nations to develop the idea further, and to inspire international
agreements. Our original Bill of Rights is no longer cutting edge,
and yet it does a remarkably good job of providing many basic protections.
The most glaring problem with it is not dated concepts or ambiguous
wording, but our failure to enforce it. We have to make enforcement
happen through Congress and the courts, or there will be no point
in making improvements.
To restore and expand our rights, there are three
basic steps we should take. The first is to enforce the rights already
protected by the Constitution. The second is to ratify and enforce
international agreements (some of which the United States has already
ratified) providing additional rights. The third is to amend our
Constitution to include a second Bill of Rights.
So, first things first: how are we doing on enforcing
the rights that we are already supposed to have? Here are the basic
rights provided by the US Constitution and its amendments, and a
quick summary of the shape they’re in today:
article i, section 9, habeas corpus:
The right not to be kidnapped and detained without
charge or trial has been eroded in the United States, its territories,
and secret prisons. The Supreme Court has admirably insisted on
the right, while Congress has been willing to toss it to the wind.
Not a single individual has been held accountable for having violated
it, and the violations have not ended. In 2001 and 2002, US Justice
Department lawyers put down in “legal” opinions that the right to
habeas corpus could be tossed aside. In 2007 Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales testified before Congress that the right to habeas corpus
that appears in the Constitution doesn’t really exist. In 2009,
the new Obama administration claimed the continued power to render
and detain without charge.
article i, section 10, the right against ex post
facto laws:
It is clearly unconstitutional to criminalize something
that has already been done and then punish a crime that was not
a crime when it happened. But what about taking actions that were
crimes when they happened and immunizing the violators? This looks
like Congress taking over the president’s pardon power. If the ban
on ex post facto laws is understood to include laws that grant retroactive
immunity from prosecution, then Congress has been busy violating
it by passing laws like the Military Commissions Act or the FISA
Amendments Act, laws that claim to give immunity to past violators
of crimes. We should consider whether to amend the Constitution
to clarify that point.
first amendment, freedom of religion, speech,
press, and assembly, and the right to petition for redress of grievances:
President Bush punched quite a few holes in the wall
of separation between church and state. He used agencies including
the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the Park Service, the Department of Defense
(DOD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Education (DOE),
the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of the
Surgeon General to promote the establishment of a religion. Freedom
of the
press has been severely curtailed by the establishment of a system
that bars entry to ownership of effective media outlets to all but
the very wealthiest. Pundits in the existing media outlets are often
directly paid and told what to say by the Pentagon or the White
House. Media outlets in occupied nations like Iraq are paid to publish
false stories. Reporters on wars are “embedded” with the military,
denied access, and banned from publishing important information
and images. Independent reporters were preemptively detained but
not charged with any crimes during the 2008 Republican National
Convention. Freedom of speech and assembly have been radically curtailed
to the point where we now have “free speech zones” consisting of
walled-in cages outside and at a distance removed from political
events. These freedoms are also absent in the workplace, where unionization
is effectively blocked, and in “private” gathering places like shopping
malls. While you can appeal to your government for a redress of
grievances, you’d better do so by mail. People attempting to do
so in person are usually prevented by security guards. A Justice
Department memo on October 23, 2001, claimed the president could
suspend First Amendment rights.
second amendment, the right to bear arms:
The Second Amendment was written to protect the Southern
states’ right to use armed militias to enforce slavery. We no longer
have slavery, but we do have the National Guard, which is supposed
to be under the control of state governors. We need to correct the
current situation in which the US president controls the National
Guard and sends its members to fight foreign wars for empire. If
we read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to
bear arms, it is important to notice that it makes no distinction
between the right to bear arms to violently protect oneself and
the right to bear arms to easily slaughter masses of people, or
the fact that some types of arms are much better suited to the latter
than the former. Clearly, this is one right that needs to be limited
by legislation or amendment to the extent that it conflicts with
that “self-evident” right to “life.”
third amendment, the right not to have soldiers
quartered in your house:
This is perhaps the only right we have that has not
been threatened or eroded in any way in recent years. But, of course,
that’s because—counter to everything the framers of the Constitution
intended—we are all paying significant portions of our income to
the government in order to provide soldiers with their own homes
on thousands of permanent military bases maintained in times of
war and peace.
fourth amendment, the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures without warrant, probable cause, and specificity:
That
same memo that brushed aside the First Amendment, mentioned above,
also claimed the president could toss out the Fourth Amendment.
Our Fourth Amendment
has been erased by legislation amending FISA, and should instead
be protected by the repeal of FISA and the passage of new legislation.
Rather than permitting the government to sidestep a rubber stamp
court that routinely and even retroactively approves violations
of the Fourth Amendment, such a procedure should be replaced by
one that does not violate our rights. The Fourth Amendment requires
a warrant describing specifically what is to be searched, and requires
that the warrant be based on probable cause. FISA permits, and always
permitted, retroactive warrants based on the flimsiest of evidence.
fifth amendment, the right to grand jury, due
process, and just compensation for property taken, and protection
against double jeopardy and self-incrimination;
sixth amendment, the right to a speedy and
public trial by an impartial local jury, to be informed of the charges
against you, to confront witnesses against you, to compel witnesses
in your favor to appear, and to have the assistance of counsel;
and seventh amendment, the right to trial by
jury:
These rights have been eroded by Bush and Cheney
so that they now apply in some cases but not others. If the president
calls you an “enemy combatant” you lose these rights. In June of
2002, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and Deputy Assistant
Attorney General John Yoo wrote a pair of secret memos denying an
American citizen named Jose Padilla these rights on the grounds
that he was guilty of various offenses. But the memos themselves
served as his trial as well as his sentence; Padilla had never been
charged with the crimes, much less found guilty. In 2009, the new
Justice Department under Eric Holder sought to dismiss a case that
Padilla brought against Yoo alleging that his memos had led to Padilla’s
detention and torture. Our due process rights must be restored to
their intended state and then expanded to include protections unavailable
in the eighteenth century, including the videotaping of all interrogations
and confessions.
eighth amendment, the right against excessive
bail or fines or cruel and unusual punishment:
The cruelest punishments imaginable have been employed
in violation of the Eighth Amendment, with the disgusting defense
sometimes offered that “interrogation techniques” are not punishment
at all. While torture and any degrading treatment are banned by
numerous treaties and statutes, the Constitution would be improved
by the clarification of the ban provided here.
thirteenth amendment, the right against slavery
except as punishment for crime:
Slavery is alive and well in US territories like
the Marianas Islands and for immigrants held by force and compelled
to work without compensation on farms in the United States; slavery
should be banned even as a punishment for crime, and that ban should
be enforced.
fifteenth amendment, the right to vote cannot
be denied or abridged because of race:
Names are removed from registration rolls on the
basis of race, and provisional ballots are rejected on the basis
of race. If provisional ballots from African-Americans in Florida
in 2000 had been rejected merely at the same rate as those for whites,
President Al Gore’s victory margin would have been substantial.
sixteenth amendment, the right to vote cannot
be denied or abridged because of sex:
This right cannot be protected for women any better
than it can be for men. We do not have an individual right to vote,
but only a guarantee that nobody be denied that right because of
their race or sex. We require that everyone register, and
then sometimes dump their names off the rolls. We hold elections
on a weekday, when many people have to work. We provide insufficient
staff at polling places, so voting can take many hours out of someone’s
day. We insert the electoral college between the voters and the
president. And we insert private corporations between the voters
and the counting of the votes. We should create the right to directly
elect the president and the right to have our votes publicly and
verifiably counted on paper ballots at each polling place.
twenty-fourth amendment, the right to vote
without paying a poll tax:
We no longer have poll taxes, but we have registration
procedures, long lines, elections on a work day, voting rights denied
as punishment for a crime, and a system so prone to errors that
many voters are disenfranchised. Hollywood actor Tim Robbins had
to spend a full day traveling around his city appealing to judges
before he could get a glitch corrected and be able to vote in 2008;
most people are not rich, white, famous movie actors with a full
day to spare.
twenty-sixth amendment, the right to vote beginning
at age eighteen:
This right cannot be protected for young people any
better than for old. We should have universal registration when
people reach eighteen. If we can register everyone for the military
draft, why can’t we register everyone to vote?
There you have it. We’ve got rights, but they are
threatened. They need restoration and enforcement. They also need
expansion and updates. But that’s not the half of it. There’s also
the matter of rights we ought to have that were never imagined by
the creators of our Bill of Rights.
Click
here to read
any of the commentaries in this series.
Any BlackCommentator.com article may
be re-printed so long as it is re-printed in its entirety and full
credit given to the author and www.BlackCommentator.com. If the
re-print is on the Internet we additionally request a link back
to the original piece on our Website.
Your comments are always welcome.
eMail re-print notice
If you send us an eMail message
we may publish all or part of it, unless you tell us it
is not for publication. You may also request that we withhold
your name.
Thank you very much for your readership.
Your comments are always welcome.
September24
, 2009
Issue 343
is
published every Thursday
Executive Editor:
Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Managing Editor:
Nancy Littlefield
Publisher:
Peter Gamble
Est. April 5, 2002
Printer Friendly Version
in resizeable plain
text format or pdf
format.