the IDIOT

some jerkoff, publicity-seeking punks got the publicity-rich idea to put an abridged version (ha!) — a bullet list — of the US constitution on the back of the one-dollar bill, with extra time spent on the amendments, as though they’re more important than the main document. warped.

“Most people were incredibly interested,” said Liz Earnest, 14. “They wanted to know a lot about what [the change] would do and how it would promote human rights.”

yeah? the proposed bullet list won’t promote anything except more ignorance. the bullets are truncated and distorted hoaxes of the original (allegedly for legibility in limited space). meanwhile, the entire preamble is included, though there’s nothing in it that’s statutory (guess that’s the point). the “bill of rights” gets the standard rewrite to accommodate the new religion of gun-phobia:

THE AMENDMENTS
1. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
   FREEDOM OF SPEECH
   FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
   RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY
   RIGHT TO PETITION
2. DEFINES THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
3. DO NOT HAVE TO QUARTER SOLDIERS DURING PEACETIME
4. NO UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
5. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
6. RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
7. RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES
8. NO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS
9. UNENUMERATED RIGHTS GO TO THE PEOPLE
10. RESERVES ALL POWERS NOT GIVEN TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO THE STATES
11. LIMITS LAWSUITS AGAINST STATES
12. CHANGES THE ELECTION PROCESS
13. ABOLISHES SLAVERY
14. DEFINES CITIZENSHIP AND PROVIDES FOR EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW
15. RIGHT TO VOTE REGARDLESS OF RACE
16. AUTHORIZES INCOME TAX
17. POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS
18. PROHIBITION OF ALCOHOL
19. WOMEN’S RIGHT TO VOTE
20. CHANGES PRESIDENT’S INAUGURATION TO JAN 20
21. REPEALS THE 18TH AMENDMENT
22. LIMITS THE PRESIDENT TO TWO TERMS
23. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
24. PROHIBITS POLL TAX
25. PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION
26. RIGHT TO VOTE FOR 18-YEAR-OLDS
27. CONGRESSIONAL RAISES FOLLOW ELECTIONS

the proposal is treacherous. i’ll explain:

their version of the 1st amendment is arguably adequate for a bullet list. it’s when it gets to the 2nd amendment that things, as they usually do, go into liar-liar-pants-on-fire territory. it’s plain that the adults behind this dastardly deal (and it’s adults doing it, you can be sure) don’t want to publish what the founders wrote, even in bullet form. they just don’t want to accept it, so they rewrite it to mimic what they wish it would say (assuming something so dreadful must be in the US constitution at all). they say the 2nd amendment defines the right to bear arms. it does not:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it obviously recognizes a preexisting right. it does not grant it. it does not limit it. it does not define it. period. the militia prelude is not in any way conditional. it may be parsed, “because X needs Y, Z shall not be done.” nobody in his right mind can pretend that such a construction means that “Z” may be done under some circumstances, or in reduced form. it shall not be done. if infringement in non-X circumstances was intended to be legal under the constitution, it could easily have been written, “because X needs Y, Z shall not be done with respect to X.”

but it’s worse than just that. look at their 5th amendment. it is simply, “RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED”. however, the 5th amendment has fuzzy-wuzzy language that can be, and has been, corrupted to the point of non-existence:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

so the unflinching, clear language of the 2nd is conveyed as “DEFINES THE RIGHT…,” whereas the convoluted and oh so conditional 5th gets an unequivocal “RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED”.

look at their 7th. they convert…

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

…to “RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES”! the real 7th has an explicit, undeniable condition in it that “the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars”, yet it gets a “RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES”. there’s no flim-flamming “DEFINES THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY” or “DEFINES THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES”, as with their 2nd amendment

compare their 9th with the real 9th. note the language, because it’s crucial: “UNENUMERATED RIGHTS GO TO THE PEOPLE”. they go to the people! horrendous. they are implying that the constitution is granting rights. just terrible. the language matters very much. the constitution says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” retained. they are preexisting rights. they are not granted, they are not distributed, they are not thwarted. they were to remain untouched by the federal government.

and the final tragedy before i quit because my head’s going to explode: their 10th reads simply: “RESERVES ALL POWERS NOT GIVEN TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO THE STATES”. meanwhile, the real 10th says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

you’re going to tell me that these fools just happened to leave out “to the people” from their worse than worthless bullet list? whatever scoundrels wrote that piece of garbage should get themselves on a fast boat to china, because they certainly don’t want to preserve even what tattered scraps are left of the US constitution.

i hope people will go to the constitution and compare it to the bullet list of the poltroons. shame on the adults who promoted this sickening project. should it succeed, the constitution on the one dollar bill could become the de factor law of the land. it’s not like the constitution means much anymore, but if the “common man” who’s now too lazy to pick up “the supreme law of the land” happens to get a load of the dollar bill whenever he’s bored on the subway, it will become the new constitution. could things actually get worse?

because it’s short, kids will be asked to memorize it. they will recite it, and they will think they know the real constitution. we know that the supreme court often follows public opinion (along with its power-grabbing heart), not the constitution. this jackass project will simply make it easier.

Sara Scates, 13, said that if people could read the highlights of the Constitution on the dollar, they might feel as she does: “By learning the Constitution, I know my rights, I know my freedoms. I know what I can do and what I can’t do.”

okay, sara. since you know the constitution now, please show me one single clause in the US constitution that tells “we the people” what we can’t do. please! what, you can’t have a slave? is that it? you can’t run for president after 2 terms? just hip me, so i can know the constitution before everybody gets the new $1 bill and knows it too.

there’s the trouble with these government-educated tragedies. they believe their rights come from government, and that the role of government is to tell you how to live. that is their version of “liberty”. very disheartening to hear kids spouting this drivel as though they are on the front lines of the freedom fight. they are marching on washington to present their chains to the rulers for inspection and get a pat on the head for “learning and using the system” with piety. that is all. they are employing slave talk under the pretense of enhancing liberty. my message to all of these shitbirds: screw you; you know not what you do.

language used to mean something in this town.

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

~Lysander Spooner, 1870

put that on the $1 bill, Heywood. except… could it be that… that the federal government is b-b-b-barred, by the constitution, from printing paper money at all? egads. i do believe this is a certified charlie foxtrot of ironic proportion! (and i almost never use the word “ironic”.)

Tags: eighteenth amendment, eighth amendment, fifth amendment, first amendment, lysander spooner, ninth amendment, second amendment, tenth amendment, voting

Posted 20040818 06:55 under constitution, liberty. Follow responses through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are closed.