Parish
Constitution and Bill of Rights Are Timeless Documents
RECEIVED Thu., Nov. 19, 2009
Dear Editor,
Christian Wagner’s suggestion [“Postmarks,” Nov. 20] that Ron Paul is a neolithic statesman whose fierce defense of liberty has no place in our current age is a trite straw man. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are timeless documents, and their contained logic is not subject to some arbitrary expiration date. If, as he suggests, age is the bar by which to measure the soundness of our policies, then why have countless numbers of people spanning the political spectrum voiced their opposition to the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the innumerable other abrogations of our age-old natural rights? Habeas corpus was first affirmed with the Magna Carta of 1215; surely then, in its vapid decrepit age, it should be rightfully abolished. Policies and the ideas they espouse should be debated on their merits, not on some haughty air of ostentatious superiority. It seems from my vantage point that Wagner would like nothing more than to cherry-pick aspects from these documents, ignoring the parts that do not suit his open-armed embrace of an expansive central government. If we each ignore the aspects that don’t fit our own myopic world-view, then what is left? The founders foresaw this and provided our nation with a purposefully arduous process (Article Five) to accomplish such aims. These changes were not to be taken lightly nor were they for transient concerns. Therefore, ignoring this ageless document is the pinnacle of haphazard change our founders not only warned against but provided safeguards against. Lest we forget its intended purpose: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798
Christian Wagner’s suggestion [“Postmarks,” Nov. 20] that Ron Paul is a neolithic statesman whose fierce defense of liberty has no place in our current age is a trite straw man. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are timeless documents, and their contained logic is not subject to some arbitrary expiration date. If, as he suggests, age is the bar by which to measure the soundness of our policies, then why have countless numbers of people spanning the political spectrum voiced their opposition to the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the innumerable other abrogations of our age-old natural rights? Habeas corpus was first affirmed with the Magna Carta of 1215; surely then, in its vapid decrepit age, it should be rightfully abolished. Policies and the ideas they espouse should be debated on their merits, not on some haughty air of ostentatious superiority. It seems from my vantage point that Wagner would like nothing more than to cherry-pick aspects from these documents, ignoring the parts that do not suit his open-armed embrace of an expansive central government. If we each ignore the aspects that don’t fit our own myopic world-view, then what is left? The founders foresaw this and provided our nation with a purposefully arduous process (Article Five) to accomplish such aims. These changes were not to be taken lightly nor were they for transient concerns. Therefore, ignoring this ageless document is the pinnacle of haphazard change our founders not only warned against but provided safeguards against. Lest we forget its intended purpose: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798
Adrian Maceiras
