This is a play. It’s coming to Duluth and a friend recommended it. I’m watching it on Amazon Prime, with too dang many commercials. It’s listed as a comedy and there are many funny parts. It’s a story of when she was debating in high school, part of which was a requirement to include some personal connection to the topic of the Constitution. When she gets to the 14th amendment, that one that made slaves citizens and is the basis for women’s rights and the Roe v Wade decision, it gets very personal. She keeps using comedic breaks so you don’t get exhausted.
She has read and studied the Constitution and how it has protected white men throughout history. We have something called “negative rights”, that is, we are protected from our government intervening in our lives in many ways. Other Constitutions have more “positive rights”, the ones that task our government with the protection of human rights. When we hear people who seem very confused about their right to own a gun and shoot someone with the slightest provocation and how that is more important than children being safe from gun violence at home or at school, they actually are interpreting the Constitution fairly accurately.
I disagree with that statement. It may be an accurate interpretation of the Constitution, but it certainly is not more important than children being safe at home or school.
The Constitution was written when we had only single shot black powder guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. Today’s guns have the ability to fire 45 rounds per miute and have become weapons of mass destruction, not personal defense.
In this respect the Constitution lacks clarity and needs to be “amended”.
My understanding.
Congress established the Supreme Court in with the Judiciary Act of 1789 which also created the lower court system.
The United States Constitution was created in 1787. Ratified in 1788.
And became effective in March 1789. The same day that the Supreme Court was established by congress.
The Judiciary Act was first assembled in 1790. Before the assembly, George Washington filled the job of federal judges.
My understanding is that the framers of the Constitution believed that the right to own property was essential for individual freedom and economic stability. This emphasis on property ownership stemmed from the colonial era where land ownership was widely prevalent and considered crucial for political participation.
The Constitution includes provisions like the Fifth Amendment which states that private property cannot be taken by the government without just compensation.
It is obvious that the Constitution was protecting ownership rights as a way of protecting freedom.
The rights of individuals are reflected in the Declaration of Independence which came before the Constitution in 1776.
Point being. It was deemed natural rights to protect your family and land. English philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke championed those ideas.
The concept of natural rights is important in American political thought, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence. John Locke’s work was highly influential with the founding fathers with his ideas about natural rights, and revolution rights. Many consider him a key intellectual figure behind the American Revolution.
Sounds like trying to work a woke angle into history.
AI - According to a study from Washington University and the University of Virginia School of Law, as of 1987, around 160 out of 170 international constitutions were at least partially based on the American Constitution, indicating a significant influence on global constitutions.
Point being. She may be missing the point that America had no solid grounds for human rights laws until it had a nation. The first ten amendments (1791) to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Other Constitutions were following us. We are said to have the first Supreme Court in history.
Yeah, I could have placed that clause better. They are accurate in their interpretation of what the Constitution protects, but very few people would argue that we, as a people, should prioritize guns over children.
Agreed. What we are looking at is the Constitution. Is that not correct. Human rights were being looked at back to 15th century with work of Thomas Hobbes. And after the Constitution which then added the Bill of Rights after the Constitution. No where in the window of 181years that we are talking about is there claims of laws and revolutions over white men. There were laws and revolutions over human rights.
While the term “American” existed before 1776, it primarily referred to the indigenous people of the Americas. The colonies were referred to as “United Colonies,” and people identified more with their British identity than a distinct “American” one. The concept of an “American Nation” became prominent with the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
Show me!
I’m open to changing my mind.
Where I am at today on this issue. After looking at many types of justice systems used from the beginning of history. Over a decade ago I thought I had found one that matched ours. Philo Judaeus lived at the time of Jesus and brought Mary and Jesus’ work back into religious philosophy for rethinking.
Philo’s work in his book Utopia, describing a fictional island society in the Atlantic Ocean. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society, and imagined societies portrayed in fiction. Which is on point of our subject here.
The thinking was that Jesus was going to bring back the Great Sanhedrin. Sort of the Supreme Court of ancient Israel in the time of Kind David, (800 years before Jesus).
The Sanhedrin was to ensure judicial independence and impartiality, judges’ terms of office could be guaranteed. Judges could also be separated from inappropriate ties to politicians, interest groups, and other potential litigants.
The Great Sanhedrin: The Supreme Court of ancient Israel, which had 71 judges. The number of judges came from the 70 elders that Moses gathered around him, with Moses himself as the 71st member.
As you can see from the structure, there are problems. Israel as a nation was only able to rule itself for 100 years.
Sir Thomas More, venerated in the Catholic Church as Saint Thomas More, was an English lawyer, judge, social philosopher, author, statesman, and noted Renaissance humanist. He also served Henry VIII as Lord High Chancellor of England from October 1529 to May 1532. Sir More brought Philo’s work on Jesus’ wanting to establish a separate power of government for keeping the laws of civilization safe from government administration interpretation.
More’s work was then picked up by Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, generally referred to as simply Montesquieu, was a French judge, man of letters, historian, and political philosopher. He is the principal source of the theory of separation of powers, which is implemented in many constitutions throughout the world today.
There are several more that were involved along the 2,000 year path to our constitution.
OK, show me her facts of our Constitution being written for white men. And tell me why other nations of non-white population would want to use our Constitution blueprint?
A general claim like that is hard to check. It’s a conclusion of many facts and much data. Here’s a case covered in the play
Jessica had a restraining order against her husband, she called the police many times. They did nothing. He killed her and her children. The Supreme Court ruled that the police did nothing wrong.
Saying it, does not make it true. Show me where in the making of our Constitution from the 15th century to the 17th century there were laws and revolutions over white men.
The case seems to be about Federal laws requiring State laws to be enforced.
Supreme Court rulings were based on state sovereignty concerns.
If this was the law. Then sanctuary cities or states could not exist today.
The jurisprudence of both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is not a legally binding and just confuses the issues.
Laws can’t always be enforced for several reasons. Using a monetary weapon to build law enforcement is not a good idea ether.
A key point in the data that has been left out is that Simon Gonzales had not been served with the restraining order.
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Jessica Gonzales had no constitutionally-protected property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order, and therefore could not claim that the police had violated her right to due process.
California is working with domestic violence and is expected to spend $78.7B this year on domestic violence cases.
I feel sorry for Jessica and wish we had a system that would keep our people happy and safe.
