Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsIndividual Entry: Statements of Rights
« The Journey of Christianity |
Main
| Harry Potter »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
November 18, 2005
Observations : Statements of Rights
I have often thought that many of today's big legal issues could have been avoided if a bit more time had been invested in the writing of the "Bill of Rights" as it has been incorporated into the United States constitution. Those who know history know that many of the founding fathers thought a statement of fundamental rights was unnecessary as such rights were obvious. In such a climate, the details of the wording of these amendments were not given the benefit of intense debate that the constitution itself was afforded. People then knew what rights they wanted guaranteed and easily read into the text what they expected, and little thought was given to how the wording might be understood and misunderstood a couple hundred years later.
When I am in the mood to contemplate my own political philosophy, one tool I use is to try to draft my own statement of human rights – what things do I think should be guaranteed by the constitution? How can such rights be described in unambiguous ways? I would encourage anyone who wants to clarify their own views to try the same exercise.
As part of that process I have often gone looking at other statements of rights which have been drafted over the years. I was recently reminded (Wikipedia is wonderful) of one of the best. "Part 1" of the constitution of the State of New Hampshire in the US is an enumeration of 38 (now 42) rights which are guaranteed to all citizen of that state. Drafted in 1784 (before the US constitution), I have always found it to be a better and clearer document than the national Bill of Rights, and it includes some quite interesting statements.
I'll start with the best – Article 10:
[Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.Yes, every citizen of New Hampshire is guaranteed the right to overthrow the government if it no longer serves the common good and it all other means to change it fail. Perhaps that's why they still don't have an income tax there.
Now relating to my recent blog on civility, the New Hampshire constitution includes two interesting statements (articles 3 and 4):
[Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.
[Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.The document establishes that society is about an exchange of rights – that one yields some rights in exchange for the guarantee of others by the state. Furthermore, it establishes that the state can not compel the yielding of rights without providing guarantees of equivalent value, which implies that it can never demand that some rights be yielded because no such compensation is possible. As a statement of political theory, I find these simple statements amazing in their power and clarity.
There's much more (for instance, I think article 6 is a much better statement of the "Separation of Church and State" than what we have in the First Amendment in the US constitution); but I don't want to bore you with more of this if you aren't interested. If I have managed to whet your appetite, take a look here.
Posted by Steven at November 18, 2005 04:10 PM
Comments
Maybe we should move to New Hamster...but they don't offer big city life.
Posted by: Anne at November 18, 2005 10:32 PM
