To the editor:
Sven Erik Alstrom, of Lawrence, asserts that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights goes beyond the U.S. Bill of Rights in protecting "the range of civil liberties." I will agree with him in that statement. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution have nothing to do with "civil liberties," which are privileges granted by the state and may be withdrawn by the state.
The EU document provides a framework empowering the governments to define and regulate rights. This is a product of the progressive movement that is based on the premise that the people are too stupid and corrupt to govern themselves. The American Bill of Rights is a recognition of existing rights and a prohibition on government. This arises out of distrust by the anti-federalist movement of the powers granted in the body of the Constitution.
The civil liberties stance has, in fact, eroded individual rights in this country in that the term privilege is often used and the public welfare, convenience and necessity has entered into the issue of speech and press.
No, Mr. Alstrom, give me limitations on the power of government, not an elite to guard my liberties. And, ultimately, the Iraqi constitution will reflect Iraq, not the occupying powers.
Earl L. Haehl,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
mermily (anonymous) says…
i offer two comments; one, i would advise against offering your unsubstantiated opinion of EU constitution framers intentions and two, governmental limitations alone leave much to be desired.
firstly, to say the EU Constitution differs from the US because their supreme law "is based on the premise that the people are too stupid and corrupt to govern themselves" whereas ours is not, forgets elements of our system that seem to illustrate a dislike for allowing the public direct control (i.e. the electoral college for example). most democratic governments attempt to strike a balance between allowing complete self-governing by the public and a federal government that borders a totalitarian system. i believe the EU strikes a fine balance stemming no more from an idea that the masses are asses than the US. if you think otherwise, i would ask that you delineate the source of your opinion, as i'm sure you weren't at the drafting....
rather than presumptuously putting forth your thoughts on the intention of multiple countries, let's discuss how certain parts of both constitutions have materialized into positive and negatives (as in there is evidence of how the law is interpreted) and philosphically wax and wan on what this may mean for other countries when they draft their own. now that would be a learning experience.
secondly, i too think the power to protect oneself is realized by limiting a government and find it a value point you make. however, i also think enumerating civil liberties is necessary. i would refer you to the 13th amendment for example (and yes, the 13th is outside the BofR). the government was fully limited by our constitution and BoF but without a proclamation regarding the civil liberties of slaves, many were denied their rights. you may argue that the 13th amendment was no more than a limitation on the government's actions, but in fact the 13th amendment is the source of a civil liberty as evidenced by the fact that it controls private action as well.