This is interesting to think about. The way I see it is that any law needs updating to move with the times; society changes and the law needs to change with it. The constitution was written so long ago it's hard to see what relevance parts like "the right to bear arms" still retain. Sections like "the right to bear arms" are very specific to the age in which the law was written. Compare this with "The right to free speech" and "the right to due process" which will never need changing as they are fundamental to democracy and to human rights (although if they are covered by human rights then do they need to be covered by the constitution as well?). The constitution was only written by men, it is not surprising that it might need "amending" from time to time and it certainly does not mean that rights have to be eroded in the process. You could argue that "the right to bear arms" amendment actually hurts citizens more than it helps them. If this is true then the constitution can be a force for bad in society and may need to be taken down off it's pedestal and amended some more. A thought that rises from this is why should a text which is over two hundred years old be able to trump modern thought.
I was in Washington D.C. over the weekend and I whilst I was there I went to George Washington's house. He had his slave quarters which were a step up from stables. Whilst looking at the squalid conditions I couldn't help thinking of the hypocrisy of America's foundations. I learnt that George Washington was a very clever man who obviously had great insight in to the rights of citizens. But how can he have been so aware of these rights and still owned slaves? Even though "all men are created equal," Americans as revered as Washington, who participated in writing the constitution, still participated in the slave trade. From it's formation the constitution did not protect fundamental human rights, so other than defining the system of governance, how can it still have relevance today?
I feel a little disillusioned by American ideas of "freedom" at the moment. The Travon Martin case is highlighting serious flaws in the capabilities of American justice. I don't understand how something like this can happen in a country that proclaims to have a free and fair society. Another thing is people getting arrested here in New York for trespassing in their own building. The victims in these cases haven't got ID with them and thus they cannot prove they live in the building which they are accused of trespassing in. They then have to spend several hours in a cell. Tales like this make America feel more like a policed state than "the land of the free." I feel far more "free" in England (the only other country I've lived in) than I do here, the two complaints above would not happen there. There, if the police know who killed someone, that person will always end up arrested and in court and the police would not arrest someone for not carrying ID. I have had a number of (innocent) encounters with the police in England and I can say they are very restricted to what they can and can't do. I simply couldn't be arrested based solely on the fact I can't prove where I live. The burden of proof is on the police who, in a situation like this, must prove I am trespassing, not me disprove it.
For me, these two points (the shooting and the arrests) are immeasurably serious. They do not paint a picture of a free and fair society; qualities Americans are led to believe America leads the world in. I think there has been a degree of brainwashing of American citizens which benefits those in power here. In being constantly told that America is the most fair, the most moral and the most free, American citizens are complacent of serious errors in society. People assume that if such things can happen here in America, it's fine because they must happen worse abroad. "Brainwashing" might seem a bit strong, but i don't think so. I was amazed to find out that children are made to recite the pledge of allegiance at elementary school. This is blatantly trying to manipulate their young minds. How can a child be expected to understand the implications of a pledge like this? It goes a little way in showing what I see as an outsider: I think Americans are taught to be patriotic and to love their country rather than doing so because they truly understand what makes a great country. This perhaps stifles the ability of society to evolve to meet modern pressures and demands and maintain the ideals set out by the constitution: freedom, liberty and the like.
For these reasons, I don't think the constitution does help America, although it might help support the facade of freedom and fairness. If an unarmed boy can be shot by a man who pursued him, and that man does not face charges of murder or manslaughter, then what is the constitution doing? If innocent people can be arrested with no more evidence than an absence of identification, then what is the constitution doing?
The point I'm failing to make is that the world is constantly changing and law needs to change with it. Having certain laws enshrined and untouchable isn't working. Such laws make indecision the fall back, even when indecision is a worse decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment