From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:21:37 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Apr12.214458.16901@yang.earlham.edu>, allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
|> 
|> 	The US, as I said, isn't any better currently than the UK for 
|> civil liberties. But a constitution with a Bill of Rights gives the 
|> US the possibility of a government which is truly limited by civil 
|> liberties, not by simply whatever the populace demands.

I realise that in theory this is so, but the longer I stay in the
US, the more I doubt it in reality.    I think that first, you have
to admit that *simply* having a written Constitution isn't enough.
The USSR had a truly wonderful Constitution, and didn't enforce
it.    A Constitution has to be enforced by an alert citizenry and
by Courts, and in this respect, I don't think the US is any better
off than the UK.   In both countries, the citizenry will defend what
it believes are its rights, but will also tolerate some shortcuts 
to deal with perceived threats, the IRA, say, or Gen. Noriega.   In 
extreme cases, such as the imprisonment of the Nisei, the US 
government can drive a coach and horses through the Bill of Rights, 
and as long as the mass of the citizens agree, even the Supreme
Court goes along with it (actually twice, in that case). 

Secondly, it's often not the rights of the citzen that are the
whole story, but rather the limits that can be placed on the
actions of Government.   A Government that can finance some of
its operations outside the normal legislative channels can do 
whatever it wants, Constitution or not.  Charles I tried this 
and failed, Hitler tried it and succeeded, Col. North tried
it and we don't know whether he succeeded or not.  If you keep
the citizens focussed on a list of rights in a document, they will
sometimes simply not notice if the government has set itself up
some unaccountable financing for operations outside the law.   
Once again, I don't see much difference between a country with 
a Constitution and one without.

Thirdly, it worries me when people talk about "civil liberties"
as though there were some agreed on definition of the term.  In
the US as we speak, there are people asserting that there is a 
"civil right" to choose to have an abortion, and others asserting 
that there is a "civil right" to be born.

They have to "assert" this because it isn't spelled out in the
Constitution whether abortion is allowed or illegal, or something
in between.   Then Justices have to decide if what the Constitution
actually says supports pro-choice or a ban on abortion, which can
be a very tenuous business.   The reasoning in Roe v. Wade has to be
read to be believed.  Once again, I don't see much to recommend
the US system over Parliament deciding the abortion law the way it
decides other things.  At least we know that Parliament is deciding:
we don't have to pretend that someone is uncovering some deep truth.

I think it tells you something that you yourself referred to "the 
recent Unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court that homosexual 
activity may be prohibited by law".   It reads as though you think
that you are able to say what is and is not Constitutional, independent 
of the very Court which makes the ruling.   What does it even mean to
refer to a Supreme court ruling as "Unconstitutional", and what are
the implications of doing so for the importance of a Constitution?

I hope - and expect - that before long the Supreme Court will rule
that there is indeed a protected right to be Gay, but when it does, 
it will have to do with a) politics, b) practicalities, c) public
opinion, and d) good sense.    It won't be the first time.   The
Supreme Court has reversed itself something like 250 times to date,
so one more won't hurt.    Of course, we'll *pretend* that it's
the miracle of the Bill of Rights again.

Finally, I think there is something to be said for knowing that
ones liberties are uncodified and constantly liable to revision 
unless one is careful.   I often feel that the US citizenry lives 
in a kind of cloud cuckoo land in which, if it waves the Bill of 
Rights vigorously enough, and is sufficiently scathing about 
countries which don't have this wonderful Constitution thingie, 
then everything will be all right.

jon. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british