- This topic has 2 voices and 0 replies.
-
Posts
-
In another area (on America and global laws)scout gaves us this…
It is true that the Constitution enshrines treaties as "the Law of the Land". But as is famously said,
"the constitution is not a suicide pact"
, and I wish I knew the author of that quote. ....
I agree with the rest of his post but I'd like to focus on the quote. According to my research this quote is often attibuted to Lincoln as a response to the charges he violated the constitution by his actions regarding habeas corpus during the Civil War. It seems to have many fans. Folks as far apart as Aelen Specter and Rush Limbaugh have used it for their own devices, however the phrase "suicide pact" seems to have first been used by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his desent to Terminiello v. Chicago (1949 case that overturned a disorgerly conduct conviction of a priest that incited a riot). The majority opinion written by Justice Douglas held the city's breach of peace ordinance violated the 1st Amendment.Jackson concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."Pretty powerful and seems that to me that he understands the relationship between liberty and freedom.Another instance found is Goldberg in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (determined it was unconstitutional to strip draft evaders of their citizenship): "The Constitution is silent about the permissibility of involuntary forfeiture of citizenship rights. While it confirms citizenship rights, plainly there are imperative obligations of citizenship, performance of which Congress in the exercise of its powers may constitutionally exact. One of the most important of these is to serve the country in time of war and national emergency. The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact. Similarly, Congress has broad power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign affairs. Latitude in this area is necessary to ensure effectuation of this indispensable function of government."There is also a good article here on the matter. Interesting that the phrase has been used both to limit and to promote civil liberties. 8)
That is a pretty good article. I like how he specifically points out that pundits use the phrase to justify restricting liberties while historically Judges have used it in the opposite manner most of the time. I guess you could say I am an originalist in constitutional matters, I think we should try and read the constitution in the context of when it was written and interpret it based on its architects intention rather than try and twist some new meaning out of it.As most people on this board are aware, I am one of those people that are all about Liberty, and I cringe every time I see a law that infringes on our liberties. As a matter of fact, the first thing I consider when evaluating a piece of legislation or an existing law in formulating my personal opinion of it is what effect it will have on my personal liberties.For the life of me I cannot understand someone who would be willing to give up some of their constitutional rights for any reason. I reminded of the popular (at least in Oklahoma and Texas) bumper sticker that says ?they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers.? That bumper sticker illustrates the sentiment that its owner is not willing to compromise their liberty for anything. That I can respect.
