Kristin Harkness (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:26:57 -0500
Alan you are right to quibble with that statement. Maybe what I should have
said, is that the Constitution as amended provides the legal protection of
the values held near and dear by many Americans as expressed in the
Declaration of Independence, where it was announced to the world in 1776,"
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,
that they were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and
that among them are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." That's
what I get for boiling things down too much. Thank you for quibbling.
From: Alan Klein <Alan@klein.net>
Date: Friday, November 10, 2000 10:38 PM
Subject: DSM: Re: Civil rights vs Education
>What a great post. I couldn't have said it better! The only quibble I have
>is that it is only in the Declaration of Independence that the phrase
>liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" shows up. It is unfortunate that
>is the only one of the two documents (The Constitution as amended and thee
>Declaration) that is not legally binding.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dawn Harkness <email@example.com>
>> The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
>> guarantee that adult citizens are free and entitled to Life, Liberty, and
>> the Pursuit of Happiness, among many other wonderful legal protections,
>> which I will loosely refer to as civil rights. If this were more formal
>> than an email on a discussion board I could give a thoughtful legal
>> of what that has come to mean, but let it suffice to say that it all
>> down to the concept that "The State can't mess with your Liberty unless
>> are found guilty of breaking the law." This revolutionary ideal is so
>> important that people have died in the pursuit and defense of it.
>> I, too, believe in this noble concept and I count on it every day of my
>> adult life. I believe it is something worth fighting for. However, I
>> not one of the citizens the founding fathers had in mind when they
>> of and fought for this notion. In fact the majority of people were
>> because originally these protections from intrusions of the State over
>> People only extended to white land-owning adult male citizens. Not
>> Not people of color. Not females. Not children. To extend these rights
>> those disenfranchised folks was considered absurd, ill-advised, not in
>> best interests, politically inexpedient and financially disastrous.
>> Historically, the lack of basic civil rights protections has been the
>> of the subjugation of less wealthy folks, people of color, women and
>> children to the advantage and profit of the rich white guys. Many people
>> fought all kinds of battles, legal and otherwise, for the extension of
>> civil rights. Disenfranchised people, and their supporters and
>> have had to fight for these rights because the people in power, who were
>> advantaged by this system, wouldn't reform it or give it up just because
>> was the right thing to do.
>> If it's wrong to do that to us as free adults, it ought to be wrong to do
>> to our children.
>> I think this is EVIL, and I believe that children should be emancipated
>> this archaic, and patriarchal system of social engineering. When there
>> as much money and power involved as there is in the traditional
>> system, you better believe it is going to take a fight to establish these
>> rights on the behalf of children. Each person has to decide which side
>> want to be on, because like most other civil rights struggles there is no
>> middle ground on which to seek refuge.
>> On a final note, to those who believe that chaos would break out if the
>> country just adopted this concept: Balderdash. Traditionally, we do it
>> every spring when kids are let out of their obligation to attend school
>> the summer. My dream is that childhood would be an endless summer, and
>> would just never force them to go back.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Nov 12 2000 - 19:48:14 EST