What if the US constitution included...
- Thread starter Syphon
- Start date
My gut reaction is that such a constitution would fail to win ratification in New England. All of the New England states had abolished slavery by the time the US Constitution was written. Admittedly, in most cases it was a gradual emancipation that had barely got started, but the laws were already there.
If for whatever reason New England joined the Union even with such a thing in the constitution, I think it leads to the slavery issue being out in the open much earlier. In OTL moderates did what they could to avoid discussing the issue for decades. That would be impossible in this TL.
Out west, you would see slave plantations established in southern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.
I don't know what you mean.
How did 18th-century people conceive of the idea of drugs? Come to think of it, when did governments began to regulate drugs? Something tells me that this provision would not be in the 18th-century version of the constitution and would have to be added later.
Slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution so I am not sure what difference that would make. apart for the fact the states had different views on the subject so could not see it becoming a pert of the constitution.
Alcohol the biggest drug was banned by changing the constitution too. Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
more interesting changes to the Constitution would be
the right of states to secede for the union.
the right of states to nullify federal laws.
"The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29
A lot of rights in the US constitution have been ignored over the years. Cannabis stamp act banning a cannabis in 1937 was only found unconstitutional in 1970s.
The problem is the supreme court can change interpretation of the constitution. appointment to the supreme court are picked for political reasons.
Without groups like the NRA the right to bear arms might be ignored a long time ago.
Under the US constitution only congress can declare war. Congress has not declared war since WWII but the us has gone to war many times since then.
Under the US constitution only congress can issue currency.
"ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.
IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
That has not stopped the federal reserve taking over that function.
without a strong lobby group to defend any given article in the US constitution it can be ignored by the federal government.
in practice in is very hard to stop the Federal government abusing the US constitution.
Nullification (U.S. Constitution)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)
is probably the best route to limited to power of the feral govemnet to ignore the constitution.
this happen during the Nullification Crisis in 1832
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
might be useful to add a right to the us constitution of states to Nullify federal law in their states.
of course if the most powerful right for states is the right to secede for the union if the constitution was changed to something they did not like or if the continued to abused the us constitution.
Last edited:
Anaxagoras
Banned
If you mean having the Constitution forbide individual states from abolishing slavery within their own borders, then not only would the convention not succeed but the Constitution would not have won ratification.
This is silly. 18th Century people didn't think about these kinds of things in the same sense that we do.
Well, a minimilist interpretation would argue that, as written, all three of these rights were implicit in the Constitution, because there was no provision in the constitution specifically stating these rights do not exist.
But, as others have said, a draft constitution specifically enumerating these rights would fail. New England would not accept an explicit right to hold people in slavery and the other two are anachronisms that would make no sense whatsoever to people in the 18th century.
It's important to note that the structure of the constution in effect provides for reinterpretation by legislatures and courts, apart from the formal amendment process. The constitution deals with broad issues and very few specific things are specifically mandated or prohibited (for example the guarantee of free speech is a general statement that has been clarified over the years by law, regulation, and most importantly court interpretation). Since attitudes and priorities change over the years this helps ensure that the effect of the constitution reflects the broad values and concerns of each generation. This is a good thing.
But, as others have said, a draft constitution specifically enumerating these rights would fail. New England would not accept an explicit right to hold people in slavery and the other two are anachronisms that would make no sense whatsoever to people in the 18th century.
It's important to note that the structure of the constution in effect provides for reinterpretation by legislatures and courts, apart from the formal amendment process. The constitution deals with broad issues and very few specific things are specifically mandated or prohibited (for example the guarantee of free speech is a general statement that has been clarified over the years by law, regulation, and most importantly court interpretation). Since attitudes and priorities change over the years this helps ensure that the effect of the constitution reflects the broad values and concerns of each generation. This is a good thing.
Last edited:
1.
The Constitution originally indirectly supported Slavery as it was, as mentioned Slavery was only forbidden by an amendment to it.
2.
The Right to Die was not something people at the time even considered, a good deal do to the fact that it was rare for someone to live long enough to suffer in the first place and actually choosing to die would be seen the same way as chosing to have a limb amputated for no reason today.
3.
People in the 18th century did'nt even have the concept of drugs in the first place, let alone support for them.
The Constitution originally indirectly supported Slavery as it was, as mentioned Slavery was only forbidden by an amendment to it.
2.
The Right to Die was not something people at the time even considered, a good deal do to the fact that it was rare for someone to live long enough to suffer in the first place and actually choosing to die would be seen the same way as chosing to have a limb amputated for no reason today.
3.
People in the 18th century did'nt even have the concept of drugs in the first place, let alone support for them.
RousseauX
Donor
The United States would not be recognizable. Under this scenario the federal government would be incredibly weak.
Okay, if some conventioner was drunk or Benjamin Franklin was making a joke that since they were talking about the right to live free they should also include the right to die, everyone would just laugh it off.
You might have some discussion at least on the banning of cruel and unusual punishment - but remember that was placed into the Bill of Rights, which was soemthing insisted on for some to accept the Constitution. So, let's move the talk to the amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment.
The problem here is that the framers will agree that people have a right not to sufer, but that will be *separate* from the "right to die" because there was no method of keeping people alive when they were sufferintg. When one died, they died, and that was the end of it. Even such things as aspirin were decades away, and so was the use of any anasthesia. (Well, maybe whiskey was used but that doesn't count in my mind.)
The best one could do there is touch on the ending suffering part with language which - in addition to prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment - states that it is a person's right to be free from cruel and unusual "suffering and punishment" rather than just punishment; and even that I have doubts if it would get through without being changed back to jsut punishment. The problem here is that it could still be interpreted by many courts up till a few decades ago to be limited only to punishments (the rack and other dungeon devices) for the reasons stated above.
Once it starts to become more possible to prolong life, you could see an earlier proliferation of living wills and such wherein people coudl maake that choice to be removed from tubes, etc., though. This would only happen, however, if it was believed by a substantilal number that what Congress intended was to prohibit people from having to suffer when they chose not to, and that is very uncertain given the understanding Cthey had in the 1780s.
Yes that is the idea.
The US constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government. Most power was intended to be with state governments.
The Federal government is much more powerful that anything the founder had intended.
Last edited:
laudanum and opium were used at the time.
"In 1676 Sydenham published a seminal work, Medical Observations Concerning the History and Cure of Acute Diseases, in which he promoted his brand of opium tincture, and advocated its use for a range of medical conditions.[3] By the 18th century, the medicinal properties of opium and laudanum were well-known."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum#History
Wow, I had no idea those were around as medicines then. thanks for the info.
It did - or at least it included the right to have runaway slaves sent back, which clearly implied the right to own them in the first place.
before aspirin willow water was used
Willow Magic by Ilene Sternberg
"
In the fifth century B.C., the Greek physician, Hippocrates, wrote that chewing bark of a willow tree could relieve pain and fever. (No wonder squirrels don’t get headaches.) In 1829, the effective ingredient, salicin, was successfully isolated from willow bark. Toward the end of the 19th century, The Bayer Company in Germany trademarked a stable form of acetylsalicylic acid, calling it “aspirin,” the “a” from acetyl, “spir” from Spiraea (the salicin they used came from meadowsweet, Spiraea ulmaria, subsequently renamed Filpendula ulmaria), and “in,” a common ending in drug nomenclature.
In the 20th century, over one trillion aspirin, the first medicine created by techniques of modern chemistry, were consumed globally to regulate blood vessel elasticity, reduce fevers and aches, prevent cardiovascular ailments, affect blood clotting, or ease inflammation.
Native Americans and early settlers used willow bark for toothaches and applied it to the source of other pains. But they also recognized that you can actually grow a whole new tree by taking a stem and sticking it in moist soil. The hormones in willows cause rapid rooting, and they discovered these same hormones could induce rooting in other plants, too.
Another discovery: In the January, 2004 issue of The Avant Gardener, a monthly newsletter to which you can subscribe for $24/year at Horticultural Data Processors, Box 489, New York, N.Y. 10028, editor Thomas Powell notes that gardeners reported all sorts of plants growing remarkably better when given regular doses of tiny amounts of aspirin (1 part to 10,000 parts water; larger doses actually proved toxic),” and that The Agricultural Research Service is investigating the reasons behind aspirin’s beneficial effects.
Plants make salicylic acid to trigger natural defenses against bacteria, fungi, and viruses. Aspirin thus is an activator of ‘Systemic Acquired Resistance’ (SAR). However, plants often don’t produce the acid quickly enough to prevent injury when attacked by a microbe. Spraying aspirin on the plants speeds up the SAR response. Tests have shown this works on many crops, producing better plants using less pesticide. “It also makes it possible to successfully grow many fine heirloom varieties which were discarded because they lacked disease resistance.” Powell says.
Scientists first encountered the SAR phenomenon in the 1930s. After encountering a pathogen, plants use salicylic acid as a key regulator of SAR and expression of defense genes. “Only recently have companies begun marketing salicylic acid and similar compounds as a way to activate SAR in crops—tomato, spinach, lettuce, and tobacco among them,” according to Powell.
“ARS scientists are studying plants’ defenses, such as antimicrobial materials like the protein chitinase which degrades the cell walls of fungi, and nuclease enzymes which break up the ribonucleic acid of viruses. They’re also testing aspirin and other SAR activators which could be effective against non-microbial pests such as aphids and root-knot nematodes,” Powell says. “This may be the most important research of the century. Stimulating SAR defenses with aspirin or other activator compounds could result in increased food production and the elimination of synthetic pesticides.”
He recommends we experiment by spraying some plants with a 1:10,000 solution (3 aspirins dissolved in 4 gallons of water), leaving other plants unsprayed. Tests have shown that the SAR activation lasts for weeks to months. (Sort of homeopathic heart attack prevention for your plants.)
Things to do:
Make your own willow water:
Easily root azaleas, lilacs, summersweets (Clethra spp.) and roses by gathering about two cups of pencil-thin willow branches cut to 1-3 inch lengths. Steep twigs in a half-gallon of boiling water overnight. Refrigerated liquid kept in a jar with a tight-fitting lid will remain effective up to two months. (Label jar so you won’t confuse it with your homemade moonshine.) Overnight, soak cuttings you wish to root. Or water soil into which you have planted your cuttings with the willow water. Two applications should be sufficient. Some cuttings root directly in a jar of willow water. Make a fresh batch for each use. You can also use lukewarm water and let twigs soak for 24-48 hours."
http://www.bluestem.ca/willow-article1.htm
Not exactly. It's more the pursuit of fulfillment, which includes, peace, contentment, abundance and joy/pleasure.
Anaxagoras
Banned
The phrase "pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
I'd thought that it was in the Bill of Rights. No? *(checks)* Oh well, no.
*(shrugs)*
[/not-an-American]
Anaxagoras
Banned
It's best to think of the Declaration of Independence as a philosophical statement rather than something that has legal power.