"Lemme give her a new style, a new hairdo, a new cut, a new cola" @ the Constitution


Scalia advocates for a solid constitution that is unchanging to the times. He states "its whole purpose is to prevent change-- to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away" (40.) He then goes on to say that the changing of the constitution under the guise of providing more freedoms, create "new restrictions upon democratic government, rather than the elimination of the old ones" (42.) 

I think the reason I do not find the argument all too convincing is because some times by restricting certain  actions/rights, you may be securing greater substantial rights where needed according to the state of the country and its citizens. Using one of the examples he gives when he states "To mention only a few things that formerly could be done or not done, as the society desired, but now cannot be done: -imposing property requirements as a condition for voting" (41-42.) By restricting people's ability to require property as a prerequisite to voting it created substantial voting rights for especially Black people who have traditionally been unable to obtain property. This goes back to our discussion about the inability to exercise a right that you are said to have essentially negates that right. If the previous imposition was continued to be allowed, it would undermine the validity of the right to vote which is granted in the constitution. It would continue to only grant white people greater voting rights than Black people despite the citizenship of Black people which entitle them to that right. Further, the reason it must be changed constitutionally and not as some other type of law is precisely due to this sentiment of protection that having it in the constitution gives it. When it comes to especially social issues that affect marginalized groups, I feel they require this "added security" because of the constant push from the majority. If we are to live in a society governed by the law and not by people, I cannot feel as though my right to participate in that system through voting could be drastically affected by the whims of the majority which I think is what would happen if it is made any kind of law that isn't constitutionally backed. I think something that Scalia misses is often the principle of things. I believe that the principle of the constitution was not just to outline a list of rights we have but to truly create the basis for the kind of society one is agreeing to live in. A constitution is made to tell citizens that "without these guarantees, this nation by you, for you, cannot stand" and to exclude marginalized identities from that assurance (despite their citizenship) because they were never in mind when it was being made, seems more like a prevention of social change than he thinks. Changing the constitution changes the foundation and base of the nation, that basis needs to change in order to accommodate the fundamental changes that the nation goes through, so the constitution needs to be changing. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the social reality imply a natural reality?

I’m very interested in understanding where the boundary between what we might consider the (or a) ‘natural’ reality and our ‘social’ reality occurs. Professor Toole offers a compelling account of how the ideology of the ruling class shapes the body of knowledge and the conceptual tools available to understand social reality. Professor Toole’s account seems to imply the impossibility of social structures as being ‘natural.’ That is, the term natural social structure or formation would be an oxymoron. She writes, “social structures are…constituted by our choices and actions,” (4) which seems to indicate that social structures are the result of human choices and actions, and so they cannot exist in the absence of them. This also seems to suggest a division between our ‘social’ reality exclusively defined by and dependent on human action and choice and a ‘natural’ reality of things not affected by humans, say the ocean and uranium. I am interested in the boundary and relationship between t...
Read more

Is cancel culture democratic (with a small "d" even though it is also Democratic with a big "D")?

Regarding Kara's Post: I want to try and tease out how Kara's blog post fits the college into Anderson's image of a private government. It seems like Kara's suggesting that the college itself is the private government. The professors are the governors and the students are the governed. The college constitutes a government because a government "exists wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions" (Anderson 42). Professors can issue orders by assigning tasks students must perform, and professors can sanction students who fail to complete these tasks or fail to do them successfully by giving them poor or failing grades in courses. The college is a private government because the "governed are kept out of decision-making" (45). The students do not, for the most part, come up with their own assignments or come up with grading rubrics for those assignments.  I agree with Kara, based on the image of the college as a private...
Read more

Better Model?

     On page 54, Beitz says that human rights are like natural rights in that they are "critical standards" not determined by legal rules, but unlike natural rights in that they do not presuppose one view about their justification. He seems to be basing this off of Maritain's conclusion that human rights are a common ground for action despite different reasons for justification for different people. He uses this to say that human rights are not "out there" as natural rights are and continues the argument on 57. He argues that there seems to be no good reason for why we should  conceive of human rights as natural ones.      Beitz points to natural rights theorists like Locke, conceived of natural rights " formulate constraints on the use of a government’s coercive power in circumstances of religious and moral diversity" (57). While I suspect that Locke would argue that he had other reasons for posing these as natural rigthts and this was a just a desira...
Read more