|
Someone who lives in Chicago and is surrounded by black people will tell you it's not the best. Yet will you say that black people are the bad guys? C'mon. It's too easy to link commonalities on the surface without diving in and looking at what is actually causing the problems.
|
I've gotta ask you, and this is just for the sake or argument and discussion, where do you draw the line between "linking commonalities" and seeing something as destructive and dangerous? What must happen for your opinion to change? I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right, im wondering what would have to happen for you to think about it differently.
I'll continue on our other discussion, too, because I missed your response before and just found it.
|
No one said America was perfect. It's immensely flawed, but the Constitution is based on the principals that all people have rights from birth. The Constitution has allowed America to progress, to illegalize slavery, to give women the right to vote, to prevent the police from seizing evidence illegally. The Constitution is to he interpreted, and the courts change their interpretations over time and based on the ideologies of society. The world will never be perfect. America will never be perfect. The Constitution was made so that we as a country can always continue to work towards perfection, knowing it will never be achieved. No one expected the Constitution to make the government perfect from the get-go, but it has allowed America to grow
|
But we don't want to move toward "perfection" when it comes to human rights. Unless you're arguing that perfection is where we are now.
let's look at the United Nations voting record I mentioned. Recall that the United States has veto power, meaning if we say no then the entire bill is not passed.
111 yes, 1 no (US) World Charter for protection of the ecology
131 yes, 1 no (US) The right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference
132 yes, 1 no (US)
Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc. are human rights
146 yes, 1 no (US) Protection against products harmful to health and the environment
94 yes, 2 no (US) Need for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua
48 yes, 2 no (US) The right to development
52 yes, 1 no (US) The right to food
52 yes, 1 no (US) The right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest standard of physical and mental health
52 yes, 1 no (US) Rights of the child
51 yes, 1 no (US) Protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflicts
49 yes, 3 no (US) Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises
I think that makes the case pretty clear on how we view the rights of citizens and people. Now, you could try and make the argument that the US should not attempt to grant positive human rights, and only negative human rights should be accepted/used (in case you're unfamiliar
click here). But if that's the case you can't argue that the constitution/US is furthering human rights, can you? Unless when you said that you meant just protecting negative human rights. If that's what you mean than you are 100% correct, but must concede that food, healthcare, water, education, ect. are not rights.
Sure, the courts can make changes of their interpretations, but what about rulings like this? The
Infamous ruling that declared that corporations were people. Do the people of the United States really think that corporations are people? I doubt that matches our ideology. What about the
Dredscott ruling? I understand that, in the second example, the court later changed the ruling. But, if the constitution was based on the rights of ALL people, that ruling should have never happened. But this does not make one put that much faith in the Supreme Court, does it? There are only two arguments that can be used against Dredscott that I can think of, and both are pretty bad for the Supreme Court.
A. The courts were biased and corrupt in that ruling (That would imply the court system is vulnerable to influence outside the constitution and what is says)
B. The constitution did not protect their rights until outrage insued (This would imply that the constitution can be manipulated as to not protect certain races or intrensic characteristics of people).
Both of those arguments have bad implications for the Supreme Court.
But if you've got counter arguments to either of those assertions, by all means speak out. I'm interested in what you have to say.