THE FIGHT FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS

BOOK REVIEW

JAMES MADISON AND THE STRUGGLE FOR THE BILL OF RUGHTS, RICHARD LABUNSKI, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006

In these times when the Bill of Rights is under constant attack, especially as they relate to the rights of criminal defendants and political oppositionists across a spectrum of issues, it is appropriate that militant defenders of those rights look at the history of the struggle to incorporate these seemingly self-evident rights into the American body politic. And that is the correct way to view this question-the struggle. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, despite fights to have them incorporated into the organic frame of government, this action was defeated. Thus, when the author of the book under review entitled his book James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights he hit exactly the contradictory attitudes toward their implementation that has followed them from the beginning of the constitutional period.

Many commentators have remarked that if a poll was taken of Americans today and the ideas of the Bill of Rights was presented in enumerated form they would be defeated as far too radical. Unfortunately there is some truth to this assertion. Thus, James Madison’s struggle to have them incorporated through the constitutional amendment process takes on added significance today. I have commented more than once that the leaders of the American Revolution were big men (and they were for the most part men) out to do a big task-and they did it. And Madison played no small part around the construction of the constitution.

This is the story presented here. The striking part about the whole struggle is that James Madison does not, on the basis of his reputation and lifestyle, come quickly to mind as the obvious leader of such actions. Nevertheless he, and essentially he alone, saw the process through from the winnowing out of the many proposed amendments from many quarters to the cumbersome ratification process. Hats off to Mr. Madison. Will future generations be able to say that we were the best defenders of those precious rights against those in American politics who would relish the return of Star Chamber proceedings? The Bill of Rights, whatever their limitations, are not window dressing. Think about that the next time you have to invoke one of them.

Today the Bill of Rights is 220 years old - and faces a Congressional DEATH SENTENCE-Down With National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)!

Markin comment:

Many times I place items in this space that I do not agree with, or fully agree with. This is a case in point. The inclusion of the Bill Of Rights to the American Consitution is an important event in humankind's progress. No question. No question either that the founding fathers "forgot" to put them in the original document (1789, so note the difference in anniversary dates) and were put in as a result of tremendous plebeian pressure. Today this National Defense Authorization Defense Act (NDAA) threatens us all, and I mean all. That part is not in question by me. What is in question is whether a little phone call to President Obama is in order. Mass protest, building mass protest, and fighting this thing tooth and nail as we will have to do in the end seems more appropriate. But I will not haggle today. Let's just fight this thing.
********
Today the Biff of Rights is 220 years old - and faces a Congressional
DEATH SENTENCE.

Today, Congress is expected to pass the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)of 2012. It makes the whole world a battlefield, possibly forever. It authorizes the military detention of civilians anywhere in the world, including American citizens here at home, who could be held indefinitely as 'suspects' without charges or trial. The NDAA would gut the Bill of Rights, which guarantees due process and access to the courts.

December 15 is Bill of Rights Day - make it the day you stand up for our fundamental freedoms!

PLEASE CALL PRESIDENT OBAMA!
Call the White House at 202 456 III.
Urge President Obama to protect the Bill of Rights and VETO
the NDAA!
Co-sponsored by: ACLU of Massachusetts,American Friends Service Committee - New England, Amnesty International, Boston United National Antiwar Coali¬tion, Come Home Amercia - Boston chapter, Community Change, ISBCC/Muslim American Society- Boston Chapter, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, Massachusetts Peace Action, National Lawyers Guild - Massachusetts chapter, the National Police Accountability Project, Occupy Boston Action for Peace Working Group, United for Justice with Peace

The Second Amendment- The Right To Revolution

COMMENTARY

A few weeks ago the United States Supreme Court decided to take a case, to be heard in the spring of 2008, involving the question of interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Despite the continuing overwhelming proliferation of guns and other armament in individual hands in this country the question of the meaning of the ambiguously phrased amendment has not faced much federal litigation in the lower courts and very, very seldom at the Supremes, the last case being heard in the late 1930’s over machine guns. The issue to be decided, if it is, is whether the amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, with or without restrictions, or whether it is a collective right to security by the maintenance of armed forces, in this case, citizen militias. The early betting is that the conservative court will hold that the right is individual but that like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as those that guarantee free speech and assembly, the government has the right to make reasonable restrictions on that right. Thus a whole new field of litigation will be opened up until somewhere down the road there is settled law on the issue.


That this issue was helped along through the judicial pipeline by the well greased efforts of a right wing businessman who wanted to test the waters only adds intrigue the question and demonstrates once again the proposition that when it comes to American justice you better have good lawyers and plenty of ready cash. Despite the source of the case’s origin, despite the probable outcome of the case and despite the ravings of the National Rifle Association and other gun aficiados socialists would welcome a legal interpretation that establishes an individual right to bear arms. However, like many issues that are not necessarily of our own making we have our own distinct rationale for our position. We see the issue in the context of the right to revolution. As the case develops I will have additional commentary from this angle as the arguments are heard and the decision made next year.

SUPREME COURT OUTLAWS PRIVATE PRESIDENTIAL MILITARY COURTS-FOR NOW

COMMENTARY

PRESIDENT MUST BEG CONGRESS REAL HARD FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!


Just as I started feeling good about beating up on the United States Supreme Court justices this week, calling them black-robed closet Nazis and Neanderthals (see above commentaries) the justices vote by 5-4 (oops, 5-3 Chief Justice Roberts recused himself on this one- but WE all know where he stands) to deny President Bush the right to use his own executive-derived and organized private Star Chamber proceedings against detained ‘enemy combatants’.

This decision would seem to negate this writer’s usual uncanny grasp of which way the political winds are blowing. Not so. Without trying to weasel out of this squeamish situation by lawyerly argument I would point out that in The Angels of Death Ride Again that the Court was positioning itself just to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. And I am correct on this. The Court’s decision did not strike down the executive military commissions as the vehicles for show trials that such commissions had become but only that the President must ask Congress nicely to set them up with all due regard for those shopworn concepts- the rule of law and the constitutional balance of powers. When the Court starts bringing these arguments in it’s definitely time to head for cover. How hard do you think the Bush administration is going to have to fight Congress (presumably in an election year) to get approval for legislation military commissions to try a bunch of Moslems fanatics. Damn, they live and breathe for these kinds of soft ball votes.

We live in desperate times as the above commentaries for only ONE WEEK make abundantly clear so we have to take even small victories, such as this decision when we can get them. Any limitation, no matter how small, on the Imperial Presidency can only help give us a little breather. Enough said.


THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!