Hey DMB,
I think there a two separate issues here...
First, there's the issue of what the 9th amendment was intended say.
Personally, I believe you've misread the 9th amendment. I think your reading
ignores the history and the text of the amendment and defies rationality in
the sense that having such a malleable constitution would defeat the purpose
of having a written constitution in the first place. Of course, there's
little point in arguing this point about original intent as it's merely a
historical question.
Second, there's the issue of the desirability of Constitutional
flexibility. While everyone agrees that the Constitution should be
flexible, the battle is over HOW FLEXIBLE it should be (remember that too
much DQ and not enough SQ leads to degeneration).
You commented that you believe the amendment process is too cumbersome
and that the constitution should be easier to amend. Do you know who your
biggest supporter on this issue is??? John Ashcroft. For years, he's been
the number one advocate of a constitutional amendment to make amending the
constitution easier... Are you starting to see why flexibility isn't always
a virtue?
Flexibility to give rights is flexibility to take rights... Those
cumbersome amendment procedures may make the addition of new rights
difficult, but they also make the elimination of rights equally as
difficult. Similarly, that cumbersome process is what stops knee-jerk
amendments like 'anti-flag burning laws', 'English as an official language',
Constitutional bans on abortion, or an amendment that mandates the teaching
of creationism with evolution...etc.
Do you doubt that these amendments would be a part of our constitution
if the amendment process wasn't so difficult???
Finally, I ask you to seriously reconsider my point from a post earlier
today....
"State constitutions are notoriously easy to amend and as such their
amendments usually number in the hundreds. Many states include such
trivialities as parking codes and littering laws in their constitutions.
The Federal Constitution has only 27 amendments after over 200 years.
According to a textbook I own, as of 1995 the Constitutions of the 50 states
contained over 6000 amendments."
It is only the cumbersome amendment process which prevents the federal
constitution from turning into just another long-winded piece of legislation
filled with trifles and trivialities.
As for the implications of the MOQ to the creation of rights, I'm hard at
work on my first essay for the forum which addresses just this point. I'll
be eager for your feedback once it's complete and posted.
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:53 BST