EDITOR'S NOTE: In June 2004 I began a new venture as managing editor of both Northfield News and Faribault Daily News. This column originally appeared in the Northfield News on June 30, 2006.
I've always been fascinated with those who feel compelled to tinker with something that isn't broken. Witness this year's recent attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution: first with an amendment that would have outlawed gay marriage and most recently an amendment that would have made the physical desecration of the U.S. flag illegal. Those who support both issues felt so passionate about them they felt it necessary to "fix" our nation's founding document so that gay people couldn't marry and others couldn't burn the flag in protest. But what irritates me is that in both instances, supporters wanted to use the Constitution to either revoke a right already granted to U.S. citizens or one that at least isn't denied. It seems a bit ironic that anyone would want to use a document based on granting and protect individual rights to ultimately take away rights. Take a look at history, and those forefathers who set about to create a new nation based on liberty (remember those words), would be rolling in their graves at the thought. And although there were many complex factors that led to our war of independence, the colonists' desire for freedom was an important one. Finally, look further back in history, and many people came to this new land because their personal freedoms were being attacked in their native countries. Aside from the few amendments that corrected procedural issues within in the executive branch and the one that allowed for taxation, most of the remaining amendments expanded freedoms. So, why would we want to taint such a document with new amendments that take freedoms away? The amendments allowing for free speech, a free press, the freedom to assemble, the freedom to practice religion, the right to bear arms, protection from search and seizures, the right to a jury trial and freedom from unusual punishment all ensured us certain rights. Later amendments, including the 13th, which abolished slavery; the 15th, which ensured that voters could not be discriminated against on account of their race; and the 19th, which gave women the right to vote, expanded rights in this country. The 23rd Amendment expanded the rights of residents of Washington D.C., to vote for president, and the 26th gave all 18-year-olds the right to vote. Only the ill-fated 18th Amendment, which enacted prohibition and was later repealed by the 21st, took rights away from U.S. citizens. Maybe that historical lesson alone should teach us that using the Constitution to take away rights is ill-advised. The Constitution has been around for more than 200 years, and there's only been 27 changes deemed important enough that have led to new amendments. (Well, cancel out that entire prohibition idea, and there's been only 25 changes important enough.) I understand that some feel passionate about now allowing gays in this country to marry, and there are many who think it disgusting that someone would burn the flag. But is amending the U.S. Constitution really the correct approach to take to debate these issues? Should we be using the very document that ensures that our government cannot take away many of our rights ... to be taking away others' right? Isn't that a bit ironic? I don't take issue with those who want to prevent gays from marrying or with those who want to protect the U.S. flag. Those are their beliefs and as long as they grant me the courtesy to disagree with them, I can accept that. However, I do take issue when they want to start fine-tuning the Constitution. Then my message becomes: Leave it alone. Think about the precedent they are setting. Political and moral beliefs in this country always have been a pendulum, swinging wildly from one side of the spectrum to the other. If those who want to see an amendment banning gay marriage or the burning of the flag succeed now, what is possible in the future? If we're going to start adopting amendments to outlaw things with which we disagree, I've got a list I'd like to start with. For instance, I personally believe there should be an amendment capping the compensation that a corporate CEO can make, preventing the outrageous greed we've seen in the last two decades. I'd also like to ensure, through an amendment, that public dollars aren't spent on private schools. I'd also like an amendment that bans the purchase of any vehicle larger than a mini-van, unless the driver has an industrial use for it. Last, but not least, I'd like amendments to do away with the designated hitter in baseball and instant replay in football ... very worthy causes in my mind. But, alas, that is why it is so difficult to pass a constitutional amendment. Our founders did not intend for the constitution to become littered with amendments aimed at settling political and moral disagreements. The Constitution is a document that contains our bedrock principles and should stay that way. Take your political and moral debates to another arena to work them out. The Constitution is just fine the way it is. -- Devlyn Brooks is the managing editor of the Northfield News.
تعليقات