Things that tend to survive, tend to survive. That single sentence, a tautology, in fact, sums up the theory of evolution. The rest flows naturally from that simple observation.
If a chimp has two offspring, the one that is better equipped to survive in its environment will probably live longer. As a result of living longer, it will probably have more offspring. Children tend to resemble their parents. Therefore, the next generation of chimps will be more like that chimp than its sibling. Over a long period of time, the population of chimps will become more and more like that first chimp that was better equipped to survive in its environment.
No rational person can argue with the basic theory of evolution, as described above. Of course, there numerous ways in which the picture can be refined. For example, the phrase "better equipped to survive" can be replaced with "better at getting its genes into the next generation." The two are not always the same. If the chimp survives a long time by not expending energy fighting for the ability to mate, the story falls apart. A bee may gets its genes into the next generation by sacrificing itself for its genetically identical siblings. The details of evolution -- what kinds of animals in fact tend to evolve, and under what conditions -- are complex. The basic theory, however, is an obvious truth.
Many Americans refuse to accept that evolution applies to humans. But they have no basis to do so. There is no rational basis to believe that humans are somehow exempt from the laws of logic. Human populations are subject to the same forces of nature as any other population. The humans who tend to survive will tend to survive, and the next generation will be more like them.
That fact alone, however, does not prove that humans and chimps (and indeed all life) share a common ancestor. But a look at the real world makes it abundantly clear that we do. From our obvious physical similarities to other animals, to the distribution of plants and animals that exist, to the common DNA we share, to the fossil record, to the very ways in which are so well and so poorly designed at the same time, the evidence is beyond overwhelming. It would be easier to deny that the heart pumps blood (a fact which, like evolution, was unknown in Shakespeare's time) than it is to deny that we share a common ancestor with other primates.
But what does it matter whether people belief in evolution. I, for one, uses to think that creationist were foolish but harmless, like the Flat Earth Society or the people who think Elvis was abducted by space aliens. Whether we shared a common ancestor with chimps six million years ago makes no difference in our daily lives. Or so I thought. I was wrong. The process of evolution sculpted our bodies and minds of a period of more than a billion years. Evolutionary thinking is critical to understanding who we are, emotionally, intellectually and physically. Understanding evolution is important for medicine, but it is also important for understand ourselves, our loved ones and every other human with whom we share this earth.
I highly recommend the following books:
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, by Richards Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223754778&sr=1-4
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, by Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Dawn-Evolution/dp/061861916X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223755602&sr=1-1
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, by Daniel C. Dennett http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Dangerous-Idea-Evolution-Meanings/dp/068482471X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223754873&sr=1-1
Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives, by David Sloan Wilson http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340923/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223754672&sr=1-1
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Real Terrorist
The terrorist who has done the most damage to the United States is George W. Bush. I am well aware that Bush did not plan 9/11, nor do I believe that he had any advance knowledge of the plot. On the other hand, George W. Bush is primarily responsible for the terror that has needlessly gripped this country and changed it so dramatically for the worse since September 11, 2001.
Terrorism is a tactic usually employed by those who, like bin Laden, know that they cannot win a conventional war. Rather than trying to do physical damage, the terrorist tries to inflict emotional or psychological damage on his enemy. The clever terrorist does not attack military installations, but rather seeks to kill civilians while they go about their regular lives, on a bus or plane, or working in an office building. (Bin Laden is not a very effective terrorist. He attacked one spectacular target, feeding his own ego, rather than hitting many smaller, random targets -- the best way to scare the daylights out of a population).
It is all but impossible to physically protect oneself from a terrorist. There are simply too many targets. On the other hand, terrorist do not really do that much damage. Human society suffers from all sorts of risks that are far more lethal, even in the most terror-ridden countries on earth. Cancer and car accidents being two obvious examples.
The best way to address terrorism is to think rationally about it. In an important sense, it is a tragedy when even one person dies, whether of cancer or an accident or an act of terror. But those three deaths are all deaths, one no different from the others. We should pay attention to the lethal risks in proportion to the actual damage they do, not based on how spectacular they are. In societal terms, physical damage from terrorism not very that important, and it does not deserve to take up that much of our attention. In the end, it is somewhere between lightening strikes and shark attacks. Yet, it gets more attention and causes more fear than many far more substantial risks.
Enter George W. Bush. Bush, along with his cronies, used 9/11 to create as much terror as possible in this country, for their own political advantage. They used it to justify their invasion of Iraq, and to get Bush re-elected. They used it to destroy our constitution. Bush claims to be prosecuting a "war on terrorism" and to be a "war president," meaningless phrases used to keep the American people terrified and submissive.
Terror is a psychological tactic, and the man who has terrorized this county is not bin Laden, but rather our own pathetic president.
Terrorism is a tactic usually employed by those who, like bin Laden, know that they cannot win a conventional war. Rather than trying to do physical damage, the terrorist tries to inflict emotional or psychological damage on his enemy. The clever terrorist does not attack military installations, but rather seeks to kill civilians while they go about their regular lives, on a bus or plane, or working in an office building. (Bin Laden is not a very effective terrorist. He attacked one spectacular target, feeding his own ego, rather than hitting many smaller, random targets -- the best way to scare the daylights out of a population).
It is all but impossible to physically protect oneself from a terrorist. There are simply too many targets. On the other hand, terrorist do not really do that much damage. Human society suffers from all sorts of risks that are far more lethal, even in the most terror-ridden countries on earth. Cancer and car accidents being two obvious examples.
The best way to address terrorism is to think rationally about it. In an important sense, it is a tragedy when even one person dies, whether of cancer or an accident or an act of terror. But those three deaths are all deaths, one no different from the others. We should pay attention to the lethal risks in proportion to the actual damage they do, not based on how spectacular they are. In societal terms, physical damage from terrorism not very that important, and it does not deserve to take up that much of our attention. In the end, it is somewhere between lightening strikes and shark attacks. Yet, it gets more attention and causes more fear than many far more substantial risks.
Enter George W. Bush. Bush, along with his cronies, used 9/11 to create as much terror as possible in this country, for their own political advantage. They used it to justify their invasion of Iraq, and to get Bush re-elected. They used it to destroy our constitution. Bush claims to be prosecuting a "war on terrorism" and to be a "war president," meaningless phrases used to keep the American people terrified and submissive.
Terror is a psychological tactic, and the man who has terrorized this county is not bin Laden, but rather our own pathetic president.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
The End of Faith by Sam Harris
At its heart, The End of Faith is about the difference between faith and reason. Faith is blind. It is not based on evidence or reason, and therefore offering evidence or reasons will not shake the faithful from their beliefs. Harris thinks that is very, very dangerous. It will come as no surprise to anyone that he began writing this book on September 12, 2001.
Harris argues that relying on faith instead of reason is a bad way to lead your life. It leads to all sorts of weird and dangerous beliefs, prevents important scientific discoveries, and stirs hatred between people who hold mutually inconsistent faith-based beliefs. Of course, people make mistakes when they rely on evidence and reason, but at least if we rely on reason and evidence, we are moving in the right direction and we are open to changing our minds when we are wrong. If our beliefs are based on faith, we are stuck forever.
There can be no doubt that faith gets in the way of progress in areas such as medicine. For example, a sizeable and vocal minority of Americans do not believe in evolution because it clashes with their faith-based beliefs. Yes, there is a vital connection between evolution and medicine. Our bodies, and our minds, are the products of evolution. An understand of evolution is crucial to understanding how our bodies are designed, but because of the faith-based, unreasoned beliefs of a minority of people, evolution is not sufficiently taught in schools. As a result, we all suffer in terms of medical care, mental health and many other areas of life.
The End of Faith will make religious people uncomfortable. Harris says exactly what he thinks, without making an attempt to spare the feelings of the religious. He does not, however, call anyone names or say anything in order to be mean or offensive. He simply states that facts as he sees them. Some reviewers claim that Harris is "intolerant" or a "fundamentalist." They are wrong. Harris, unlike many religious leaders, fully supports the right to think, say and believe as you wish. He opposes any form of oppression.
On other hand, Harris also reserves the right to think some beliefs are foolish. You probably do not respect the belief that Elvis is alive. Harris feels the same way about religious beliefs. He certainly would not want to see Elvis believers put in jail or denied rights, but he feels free to say that belief in Elvis is just plain wrong.
Harris argues that relying on faith instead of reason is a bad way to lead your life. It leads to all sorts of weird and dangerous beliefs, prevents important scientific discoveries, and stirs hatred between people who hold mutually inconsistent faith-based beliefs. Of course, people make mistakes when they rely on evidence and reason, but at least if we rely on reason and evidence, we are moving in the right direction and we are open to changing our minds when we are wrong. If our beliefs are based on faith, we are stuck forever.
There can be no doubt that faith gets in the way of progress in areas such as medicine. For example, a sizeable and vocal minority of Americans do not believe in evolution because it clashes with their faith-based beliefs. Yes, there is a vital connection between evolution and medicine. Our bodies, and our minds, are the products of evolution. An understand of evolution is crucial to understanding how our bodies are designed, but because of the faith-based, unreasoned beliefs of a minority of people, evolution is not sufficiently taught in schools. As a result, we all suffer in terms of medical care, mental health and many other areas of life.
The End of Faith will make religious people uncomfortable. Harris says exactly what he thinks, without making an attempt to spare the feelings of the religious. He does not, however, call anyone names or say anything in order to be mean or offensive. He simply states that facts as he sees them. Some reviewers claim that Harris is "intolerant" or a "fundamentalist." They are wrong. Harris, unlike many religious leaders, fully supports the right to think, say and believe as you wish. He opposes any form of oppression.
On other hand, Harris also reserves the right to think some beliefs are foolish. You probably do not respect the belief that Elvis is alive. Harris feels the same way about religious beliefs. He certainly would not want to see Elvis believers put in jail or denied rights, but he feels free to say that belief in Elvis is just plain wrong.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Medical Hell, Part I: Sign Your Life Away
I'm planning on posting a short series of comments on the failings of our medical system, based on my experiences. In each case, my point is not to whine that I have been treated poorly. Quite the opposite, I believe that the treatment I received is typical or even "good" by our incredibly low standards. It is the medical system that I wish to criticize, not my particular health care providers. Here's the first installment:
A couple of months ago, I decided to undergo a relatively low risk heart procedure. The first available appointment was about six weeks in the future when I made the decision. During that six week period I visited the doctor once, received various papers in the mail with instructions on where to show up and when, as well as several phone calls asking to confirm the appointment and for information designed to make sure that the hospital can get paid for its services.
It was not until the just before the procedure, however, when the IV was already in my arm, that the hospital gave me detailed legal waivers to sign. Then, the nurse came in and told me she wanted to discuss the various risks of the procedure so that I could give my "informed consent." All this while I am already lying in a hospital gown with a rubber pipe sticking out of my arm. One other minor point: before all this happened, I had already passed out once when the nurse tried to get the IV into the back of my hand and, after several minutes of trying, failed and had to pull it out. My blood pressure dropped to 72/42: the perfect time to sign legal documents and make important decisions about one's health care.
I know I don't really need to say more, but I cannot resist. Just imagine me saying, "wait, nurse, I need to review the fine print in this release before I sign it." Or how about, "nurse, I'd like to negotiate here in paragraph 24.2(a)(2), where the arbitrator is JAMS. How about the AAA instead?" Or how about this one: "What? There is a risk of stroke in this procedure? Well, in that case, I changed my mind. Take this IV out of my arm, I'm going home!" Sadly, I was in no condition to be a smart-ass. What actually happened is that I signed the releases without reading them and told the nurse not to go over the risks with me, lest I pass out a second time. She beat a hasty retreat. (Yes, I knew the risks. I did my own research).
This "sneak attack" is standard operating procedure in our hospitals and doctors' offices. After the patient has bought the health insurance showing the doctor as a preferred provider, and after the patient has arrived for his appointment, the doctor presents forms waiving many important rights. Sign it or you get no treatment. Hospitals routinely wait until the patient is checked in before demanding that the patient sign their forms. Sign it or check back out.
I used to trust doctors and hospitals, but no more. This outrageous conduct is only one of the many reasons.
A couple of months ago, I decided to undergo a relatively low risk heart procedure. The first available appointment was about six weeks in the future when I made the decision. During that six week period I visited the doctor once, received various papers in the mail with instructions on where to show up and when, as well as several phone calls asking to confirm the appointment and for information designed to make sure that the hospital can get paid for its services.
It was not until the just before the procedure, however, when the IV was already in my arm, that the hospital gave me detailed legal waivers to sign. Then, the nurse came in and told me she wanted to discuss the various risks of the procedure so that I could give my "informed consent." All this while I am already lying in a hospital gown with a rubber pipe sticking out of my arm. One other minor point: before all this happened, I had already passed out once when the nurse tried to get the IV into the back of my hand and, after several minutes of trying, failed and had to pull it out. My blood pressure dropped to 72/42: the perfect time to sign legal documents and make important decisions about one's health care.
I know I don't really need to say more, but I cannot resist. Just imagine me saying, "wait, nurse, I need to review the fine print in this release before I sign it." Or how about, "nurse, I'd like to negotiate here in paragraph 24.2(a)(2), where the arbitrator is JAMS. How about the AAA instead?" Or how about this one: "What? There is a risk of stroke in this procedure? Well, in that case, I changed my mind. Take this IV out of my arm, I'm going home!" Sadly, I was in no condition to be a smart-ass. What actually happened is that I signed the releases without reading them and told the nurse not to go over the risks with me, lest I pass out a second time. She beat a hasty retreat. (Yes, I knew the risks. I did my own research).
This "sneak attack" is standard operating procedure in our hospitals and doctors' offices. After the patient has bought the health insurance showing the doctor as a preferred provider, and after the patient has arrived for his appointment, the doctor presents forms waiving many important rights. Sign it or you get no treatment. Hospitals routinely wait until the patient is checked in before demanding that the patient sign their forms. Sign it or check back out.
I used to trust doctors and hospitals, but no more. This outrageous conduct is only one of the many reasons.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Not My Heroes
Our press and politicians are fond of referring to the men and women of our armed forces as "heroes," and saying that we owe them a great debt. In large part, I disagree. Most of our armed forces are not my heroes. At best, they are victims of their own ignorance who have damaged themselves and others. I might feel sorry for some of them, but they are hardly heroes.
Our armed forces are volunteers. Each and every member of the armed forces chose to join the military. Moreover, anyone who joined the military since approximately January 1, 2003, knew that they would likely serve in the invasion of Iraq: a fiasco of mind-boggling proportions that has cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives and irreparably harmed the reputation of this country, not to mention what it has done to the people of Iraq.
I fail to see how volunteering to participate in the invasion of Iraq qualifies one as a hero. I agree that a person's motivation in agreeing to serve is morally relevant. Some members of the armed services thought the invasion was a good idea. They were wrong, and their mistake damaged both themselves and others: not heroes. They may be good people, but they made a bad mistake and we are all paying the costs.
Some soldiers may have not concerned themselves with the merits of the mission, and simply joined out of a sense of loyalty to the country. Given that the country made a decision to attack, they volunteered to be the ones to put their lives on the line. Those who served Hitler could make the same argument: "It is not my business whether my country should be at war, I should always support my country." Blind allegiance to any one or anything is dangerous, and anyone who is willing to risk their life because George Bush wants to start a war is anything but a hero.
Our armed forces are volunteers. Each and every member of the armed forces chose to join the military. Moreover, anyone who joined the military since approximately January 1, 2003, knew that they would likely serve in the invasion of Iraq: a fiasco of mind-boggling proportions that has cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives and irreparably harmed the reputation of this country, not to mention what it has done to the people of Iraq.
I fail to see how volunteering to participate in the invasion of Iraq qualifies one as a hero. I agree that a person's motivation in agreeing to serve is morally relevant. Some members of the armed services thought the invasion was a good idea. They were wrong, and their mistake damaged both themselves and others: not heroes. They may be good people, but they made a bad mistake and we are all paying the costs.
Some soldiers may have not concerned themselves with the merits of the mission, and simply joined out of a sense of loyalty to the country. Given that the country made a decision to attack, they volunteered to be the ones to put their lives on the line. Those who served Hitler could make the same argument: "It is not my business whether my country should be at war, I should always support my country." Blind allegiance to any one or anything is dangerous, and anyone who is willing to risk their life because George Bush wants to start a war is anything but a hero.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Asset Protection
Many people fear that they will one day lose a lawsuit, and that all their hard earned assets will be taken away. A google search for "Asset Protection" will reveal numerous companies that play to that fear, and offer strategies to prevent creditors from taking your assets. Some of these strategies are legitimate, such placing funds into retirement accounts. Others, such as buying insurance, are actually beneficial to all concerned. For the most part, however, asset protection means committing fraud on your future creditors. It is relatively easy to see why.
Asset protection usually means placing assets into a "trust" which the owner still controls. The owner can do whatever he wants with the trust assets, including spending them or taking them out of the trust. These trusts have provisions that state that, when you are sued, or a judgment is entered against you, you "lose" control over the trust. The trust is then run by some third party in an off shore location, and it is supposedly impossible for creditors to get at the funds. I am not aware of any court in the United States upholding such a provision, nor stating that it is anything other than blatant conspiracy to defraud creditors.
An asset is either yours or it is not. If you really wish to give away your assets, you are free to do so (so long as you still have enough money to pay your debts). If not, then the assets are still yours and your creditors are entitled to get them if you do not pay your debts. One major way asset protection works is by trying to have it both ways -- the assets are yours when you want, but are not yours when creditors come knocking. No court is going to let you get away with that.
The other major way asset protection works is outright fraud. Just hide your assets from the creditor. And lie. Sadly, fraud works, but then again so does robbing a bank. On the other hand, getting caught committing fraud has consequences. The consequences of engaging in asset protection is that you will have a very hard time ever filing bankruptcy if you need to do so. Bankruptcy courts generally make debtors account for their assets before they discharge debts. If you tell the Judge, "I used to have money, but I sent it all to the Cayman Islands so my creditors couldn't get it," you are not likely to get a discharge any time soon.
Some of these "asset protection" companies pretend to legitimate businesses. For example, take a look at the following website: http://www.southpacgroup.com/contact.html. These people operate a scam. My client has a judgment against them for more than $3,000,000 as a result of their attempts to help a rapist avoid paying his victim, but that does not stop them from teaching "continuing education" courses to members of the California State Bar. Or consider this website: http://www.assetprotectioncorp.com/. It is run by disbarred lawyer Robert Lambert, who says, "All asset protection techniques have one thing in common: they each make it more difficult for a creditor to either find or take assets." Ask him if he can tell you about a single plan he has devised that withstood an attack in court.
Many asset protection companies try to justify their actions by blaming the legal system. "Those evil lawyers are just predators, waiting to take your hard earned money away." I am no fan of our legal system, but asset protection does not offer reform: it offers chaos. A creditor can only take your money if, after a trial, a court determines that you owe the money. If you insulate yourself from that, you place yourself above the law. More importantly, no one can seriously hope to live in a society with things like bank accounts, long term leases, credit or home ownership if anyone can simply stick their assets into a trust and avoid paying their legitimate bills. Would you loan money to anyone, knowing that they could avoid repaying you by placing all their money in a trust?
Incredibly, no one seems to care about the asset protection industry. It would be easy enough to shut down. California has no obligation to honor corporations or trusts from countries such as the Cayman Islands or the Cook Islands, which are essentially safe harbors for white collar criminals. California could shut down most or all of Southpac's business by simply forcing the Cooks Islands to choose -- either enter into reciprocal agreements to enforce each other's judgments, or your corporations and trusts cannot do business in our State. California could shut down Robert Lambert by prosecuting him from practicing law without a license -- a felony, considering that he lost his license.
Asset protection is nothing more than a scam, designed to trap the greedy and the fearful.
Asset protection usually means placing assets into a "trust" which the owner still controls. The owner can do whatever he wants with the trust assets, including spending them or taking them out of the trust. These trusts have provisions that state that, when you are sued, or a judgment is entered against you, you "lose" control over the trust. The trust is then run by some third party in an off shore location, and it is supposedly impossible for creditors to get at the funds. I am not aware of any court in the United States upholding such a provision, nor stating that it is anything other than blatant conspiracy to defraud creditors.
An asset is either yours or it is not. If you really wish to give away your assets, you are free to do so (so long as you still have enough money to pay your debts). If not, then the assets are still yours and your creditors are entitled to get them if you do not pay your debts. One major way asset protection works is by trying to have it both ways -- the assets are yours when you want, but are not yours when creditors come knocking. No court is going to let you get away with that.
The other major way asset protection works is outright fraud. Just hide your assets from the creditor. And lie. Sadly, fraud works, but then again so does robbing a bank. On the other hand, getting caught committing fraud has consequences. The consequences of engaging in asset protection is that you will have a very hard time ever filing bankruptcy if you need to do so. Bankruptcy courts generally make debtors account for their assets before they discharge debts. If you tell the Judge, "I used to have money, but I sent it all to the Cayman Islands so my creditors couldn't get it," you are not likely to get a discharge any time soon.
Some of these "asset protection" companies pretend to legitimate businesses. For example, take a look at the following website: http://www.southpacgroup.com/contact.html. These people operate a scam. My client has a judgment against them for more than $3,000,000 as a result of their attempts to help a rapist avoid paying his victim, but that does not stop them from teaching "continuing education" courses to members of the California State Bar. Or consider this website: http://www.assetprotectioncorp.com/. It is run by disbarred lawyer Robert Lambert, who says, "All asset protection techniques have one thing in common: they each make it more difficult for a creditor to either find or take assets." Ask him if he can tell you about a single plan he has devised that withstood an attack in court.
Many asset protection companies try to justify their actions by blaming the legal system. "Those evil lawyers are just predators, waiting to take your hard earned money away." I am no fan of our legal system, but asset protection does not offer reform: it offers chaos. A creditor can only take your money if, after a trial, a court determines that you owe the money. If you insulate yourself from that, you place yourself above the law. More importantly, no one can seriously hope to live in a society with things like bank accounts, long term leases, credit or home ownership if anyone can simply stick their assets into a trust and avoid paying their legitimate bills. Would you loan money to anyone, knowing that they could avoid repaying you by placing all their money in a trust?
Incredibly, no one seems to care about the asset protection industry. It would be easy enough to shut down. California has no obligation to honor corporations or trusts from countries such as the Cayman Islands or the Cook Islands, which are essentially safe harbors for white collar criminals. California could shut down most or all of Southpac's business by simply forcing the Cooks Islands to choose -- either enter into reciprocal agreements to enforce each other's judgments, or your corporations and trusts cannot do business in our State. California could shut down Robert Lambert by prosecuting him from practicing law without a license -- a felony, considering that he lost his license.
Asset protection is nothing more than a scam, designed to trap the greedy and the fearful.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Original Intent
Many judges, including perhaps a majority of the US Supreme Court, subscribe to the belief that the US Constitution should be interpreted based the drafters' intent. At first glance, the idea makes perfect sense. After all, the Common Law generally provides that a contract or law should ordinarily be interpreted as the authors' intended. When it comes to the Constitution, however, seeking original intent is completely irrational.
The Constitution is 230 years old. No one alive today voted for it. Even at the time the Constitution was ratified, only small minority of those then alive had anything to do with the decision. Women did not get the vote until over 100 years later and blacks in the U.S. were nearly all held in slavery. Moreover, no matter how good their intentions, the authors of the Constitution had no right to impose their will on their contemporaries, let alone everyone who lives in the United States (as it has now expanded) for all time.
Thankfully, human society has advanced substantially in the past 230 years. Although the authors of the Constitution may have been enlightened for their time, their views on interracial marriage, slavery, crime and punishment and numerous other matters are barbarian by today's standards. The fact that these people thought we have a right to bear arms, for example, should not control our lives. Their judgment about right and wrong is questionable at best, and perhaps more importantly they knew nothing about the weapons or society of today.
Ironically, looking for original intent ignores the true genius of the Constitution. The drafters never intended to legislate 23o years in advance. Rather than defining the rights of the citizens in clear terms, the drafters used phrases like "Due Process of Law" and "Equal Protection." These phrases were intended to be vague, so that each generation could interpret them differently and thus govern themselves. Asking what the drafters meant by "Equal Protection" is not only asking for trouble, it is actually ignoring the drafters' intent.
The Constitution is 230 years old. No one alive today voted for it. Even at the time the Constitution was ratified, only small minority of those then alive had anything to do with the decision. Women did not get the vote until over 100 years later and blacks in the U.S. were nearly all held in slavery. Moreover, no matter how good their intentions, the authors of the Constitution had no right to impose their will on their contemporaries, let alone everyone who lives in the United States (as it has now expanded) for all time.
Thankfully, human society has advanced substantially in the past 230 years. Although the authors of the Constitution may have been enlightened for their time, their views on interracial marriage, slavery, crime and punishment and numerous other matters are barbarian by today's standards. The fact that these people thought we have a right to bear arms, for example, should not control our lives. Their judgment about right and wrong is questionable at best, and perhaps more importantly they knew nothing about the weapons or society of today.
Ironically, looking for original intent ignores the true genius of the Constitution. The drafters never intended to legislate 23o years in advance. Rather than defining the rights of the citizens in clear terms, the drafters used phrases like "Due Process of Law" and "Equal Protection." These phrases were intended to be vague, so that each generation could interpret them differently and thus govern themselves. Asking what the drafters meant by "Equal Protection" is not only asking for trouble, it is actually ignoring the drafters' intent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)