Full Version: Socialism and the Constitution
I have heard many people say in time we could make a gradual shift to socialism.
But I have wondered, what happens to our bill of rights in a socialist government.
Would we still have freedom of speech and freedom of the press?
Could we exercise our 5th amendment privileges in a court of law?
Question for debate: Can we ever move to socialism and retain the protections of the Bill of Rights?
But I have wondered, what happens to our bill of rights in a socialist government.
Would we still have freedom of speech and freedom of the press?
Could we exercise our 5th amendment privileges in a court of law?
Question for debate: Can we ever move to socialism and retain the protections of the Bill of Rights?
Many people would argue we are making a gradual shift toward socialism. Federal welfare programs are a violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The federal government's powers should be limited to the powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution
Much of this debate centers around what you define as socialism. If you define it as the government controlling all means of production history shows these governments have a strong predisposition towards tolitarian rule and deprivation of human rights. In the US and Europe where socialism is better defined as the government controlling the output of production I have seen few threats, due to social welfare programs, on freedoms of the type guaranteed in the first eight amendments of our Constitution.
Actually there are more restrictions on free speech in Europe and Canada but I see no relationship between this and the economic system of socialism.
Much of this debate centers around what you define as socialism. If you define it as the government controlling all means of production history shows these governments have a strong predisposition towards tolitarian rule and deprivation of human rights. In the US and Europe where socialism is better defined as the government controlling the output of production I have seen few threats, due to social welfare programs, on freedoms of the type guaranteed in the first eight amendments of our Constitution.
Actually there are more restrictions on free speech in Europe and Canada but I see no relationship between this and the economic system of socialism.
I am surprised this thread has not gotten more response from those who support socialism. 
And when I mean socialism as a form of government I mean government control of all social services and redistribution of wealth.
And when I mean socialism as a form of government I mean government control of all social services and redistribution of wealth.
I can think of only two posters on this forum who advocate such a system... and I don't see how they or I would have much to add since distribution of wealth has very little to do with any of the rights in the Bill of Rights, except section 9 and 10 which some would argue it contradicts directly.
I would have to answer that while socialism, in theory, certainly allows for freedoms of the press, speech, etc (and since this is hypothetical we'd probably have to ignore the 9th and 10th amendments here), it will inevitably be hostile toward these same freedoms in practice.
Let us assume, for instance, that we have the same first 8 amendments in the Bill of Rights as we have today, only under a more socialist regime. And example I already pointed out in a 1st Amendment debate thread is one of what happens when government intertwines itself closely in our lives? If, as per the 1st Amendment, we expect government to refrain from establishments of or restpecting religion, then the more intertwined our lives become with government and government services, the more we will have to curtail the extent to which we can exercize our religious freedoms.
Government-provided education, for instance, must therefore becomes restricted in what it can say or do with regard to religion, or even with regard to other controversial topics, such as politics. And as we've already seen in the US, this bleeds over into restricting the free and voluntary actions of individuals who are not themselves affiliated with that government institution (such as students).
The more we depend upon government to provide for us, and the more we require people to interact with the government, the more restricted our freedoms will have to be.
Consider, for instance, one's freedom to associate. The Boy Scouts of America were almost told that they MUST associate with individuals of whom they dissapprove by reason of the fact that BSA received support from the government in the form of being allowed to use certain federal properties to hold its events. Just imagine if practically everything in life were provided by the government! You'd have no say at all as to with whom you would associate, etc. Arguments could be made that your life itself was owed to the government since it is the government that sustains you, and therefore you should be at the complete disposal of the government and that your every action should be subject to regulation. It's a well-known and proven principle that whatever the government subsidises, it controls.
Now aside from these practical examples of how government control will creep in regardless of supposed protections of rights, there is the fact that the ideas themselves that underpin socialism are themselves fundamentally predisposed to the abridgement of such rights.
Socialism is a collectivist ideology, and as such does not recognize the individual as being the sole and supreme unit of society. Rather, collectivist ideologies see "society" as a whole as the supreme and overriding entity. This worldview itself is therefore necessarily hostile to individual freedom where the freedom of the individual intersects the perceived "good of the whole". And of course, what exactly is good for the "whole" is completely subjective and varies from individual to individual.
So aside from practical reasons why I believe socialism to be incompatible with individual rights, I also think there are ideological reasons why collectivist thinking will ultimately lead one away from individual rights.
Let us assume, for instance, that we have the same first 8 amendments in the Bill of Rights as we have today, only under a more socialist regime. And example I already pointed out in a 1st Amendment debate thread is one of what happens when government intertwines itself closely in our lives? If, as per the 1st Amendment, we expect government to refrain from establishments of or restpecting religion, then the more intertwined our lives become with government and government services, the more we will have to curtail the extent to which we can exercize our religious freedoms.
Government-provided education, for instance, must therefore becomes restricted in what it can say or do with regard to religion, or even with regard to other controversial topics, such as politics. And as we've already seen in the US, this bleeds over into restricting the free and voluntary actions of individuals who are not themselves affiliated with that government institution (such as students).
The more we depend upon government to provide for us, and the more we require people to interact with the government, the more restricted our freedoms will have to be.
Consider, for instance, one's freedom to associate. The Boy Scouts of America were almost told that they MUST associate with individuals of whom they dissapprove by reason of the fact that BSA received support from the government in the form of being allowed to use certain federal properties to hold its events. Just imagine if practically everything in life were provided by the government! You'd have no say at all as to with whom you would associate, etc. Arguments could be made that your life itself was owed to the government since it is the government that sustains you, and therefore you should be at the complete disposal of the government and that your every action should be subject to regulation. It's a well-known and proven principle that whatever the government subsidises, it controls.
Now aside from these practical examples of how government control will creep in regardless of supposed protections of rights, there is the fact that the ideas themselves that underpin socialism are themselves fundamentally predisposed to the abridgement of such rights.
Socialism is a collectivist ideology, and as such does not recognize the individual as being the sole and supreme unit of society. Rather, collectivist ideologies see "society" as a whole as the supreme and overriding entity. This worldview itself is therefore necessarily hostile to individual freedom where the freedom of the individual intersects the perceived "good of the whole". And of course, what exactly is good for the "whole" is completely subjective and varies from individual to individual.
So aside from practical reasons why I believe socialism to be incompatible with individual rights, I also think there are ideological reasons why collectivist thinking will ultimately lead one away from individual rights.
QUOTE(Orat @ Nov 26 2003, 02:00 PM)
Now aside from these practical examples of how government control will creep in regardless of supposed protections of rights, there is the fact that the ideas themselves that underpin socialism are themselves fundamentally predisposed to the abridgement of such rights.
Socialism is a collectivist ideology, and as such does not recognize the individual as being the sole and supreme unit of society.
Socialism is a collectivist ideology, and as such does not recognize the individual as being the sole and supreme unit of society.
Don't mistake your misgivings about socialism with socialist theory Orat. Most socialist thinkers would disagree passionately with your interpretation of THEIR thoughts. Socialist thought ranges from an attitude you describe to one where only through collective action CAN individual rights be achieved; those rights are just disentangled from a materialist (or Lockean) view of rights.
Could we retain our rights under socialism? If you are asking that question with the definition of socialism being more of a "mixed economy" then I would have to say-"yes" Government spending programs are not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but that hasn't stopped every president since the begining of our own government to engage in government sponsored projects. John Quincy Adams set up funds for the building of canals and roads, courtesy of the government. While the constitution does not state the government shall own businesses, neither does it prevent it.
Ultimatejoe:
I don't. I'm merely pointing out the direction things would likely take (and already have in several cases) were we to head down a continually more socialist path. But you must also remember that Socialist theory is quite frequently (and IMHO, necessarily) a very different thing from Socialist practice.
nebraska29:
Actually, the Constitution prevents the federal government from doing anything that it is not explicitly empowered to do by the Constitution. See the 10th Amendment. So if the Constitution is silent on an issue, chances are, the government is precluded by default.
QUOTE
Don't mistake your misgivings about socialism with socialist theory Orat.
I don't. I'm merely pointing out the direction things would likely take (and already have in several cases) were we to head down a continually more socialist path. But you must also remember that Socialist theory is quite frequently (and IMHO, necessarily) a very different thing from Socialist practice.
nebraska29:
QUOTE
While the constitution does not state the government shall own businesses, neither does it prevent it.
Actually, the Constitution prevents the federal government from doing anything that it is not explicitly empowered to do by the Constitution. See the 10th Amendment. So if the Constitution is silent on an issue, chances are, the government is precluded by default.
Socialism has had plenty of opportunities to prove how well it works and has come up wanting. And lets not forget that under pure socialism you also give up your right to own and pass on private property.
Overall IMO you can never approach the efficiency of Capitalism in a Socialist economy. The ones that come the closest have very high taxes, generally high unemployment and a general lack of efficiency in the capitalist segments as compared to the US.
Overall IMO you can never approach the efficiency of Capitalism in a Socialist economy. The ones that come the closest have very high taxes, generally high unemployment and a general lack of efficiency in the capitalist segments as compared to the US.
Where in the Constitution does is say anything about "Capitalism" or Free Enterprise. Where does it mention Corporations Rights.
It does say in the Declaration, "Provide for the General Welfare" it is from that declaration FDR found legal authority for Social Security, from which most all Welfare programs are paid.
Social Security by the way has a 2.6 trillion surplus, which means none of the Deficits spending or national debt is created by Entitlements or Social spending.
Neither Capitalism on its own or Socialism work , Capitalism without regulation is simply "dog eat dog" the purpose of civilization is to move away from that,, Socialism fails because it lacks the Venture Capitalist who will to take Risk.
We have a Capitalistic system with a Socialistic Security safety net. It works.
It does say in the Declaration, "Provide for the General Welfare" it is from that declaration FDR found legal authority for Social Security, from which most all Welfare programs are paid.
Social Security by the way has a 2.6 trillion surplus, which means none of the Deficits spending or national debt is created by Entitlements or Social spending.
Neither Capitalism on its own or Socialism work , Capitalism without regulation is simply "dog eat dog" the purpose of civilization is to move away from that,, Socialism fails because it lacks the Venture Capitalist who will to take Risk.
We have a Capitalistic system with a Socialistic Security safety net. It works.
QUOTE(PiedPiper @ Jan 17 2004, 05:39 PM)
We have a Capitalistic system with a Socialistic Security safety net. It works.
In my opinion we have neither.
How can huge subsidies and bailouts for corporations called capitalism? If we lived in a truely capitalist system Chrysler would be out of business. Would the government step in to help my ailing corporation like it did the S&L industry? I dont think so. How can billions in sweetheart contracts for the defence industry be called fair competition? It isnt.
Social Security is a joke. Do you realize that even if you are awarded Social Security disability you must wait for 2 years before being elidgable for medicare? Until then you must supply your own insurance. There lies the problem, how do you afford insurance when your disabled? Other industrialized nations already have universal health care, yet we don't; mostly because of what was mentioned in the first paragraph.
You have to balance this question with are you keeping your rights under the current "capitalist" society. The Patriot Act undermines the 4th and 5th admendments.
You certainly have elements of "socialism" or giving a damn about every citizen. You have collosal state subsidies for farmers (which cripples the 3rd world suppliers) and Welfare and medicare.
In Britain, under both the Conservatives and Labour, we have the National Health Service providing free healthcare (top to bottom) for everyone at the point of need. This costs less per head than your US health system. We have 20-25 days holiday per year. We have a free press, the 4th largest economy in the world, we create 400,000 companies a year, we have subsidised Farmers, subsidised local and national public transport. We have free prescription drugs for the retired, children and those on benefits. We have subsidised dental care, unarmed police and the toughest anti-gun laws in Europe. We have some of the lowest tax rates in Europe.
This to some Americans (I believe most Americans are liberals, however) is a very Socialist state. But we've been like since since WW2. We haven't turned into Cuba. What we have is a nation of healthier, happier workers. It's no utopia, believe me, but if I was made redundant I'd be better off here than in the US. The French nation has an almost identical system of government (America's was based on it) to yours and it has all the UK has and more.
You certainly have elements of "socialism" or giving a damn about every citizen. You have collosal state subsidies for farmers (which cripples the 3rd world suppliers) and Welfare and medicare.
In Britain, under both the Conservatives and Labour, we have the National Health Service providing free healthcare (top to bottom) for everyone at the point of need. This costs less per head than your US health system. We have 20-25 days holiday per year. We have a free press, the 4th largest economy in the world, we create 400,000 companies a year, we have subsidised Farmers, subsidised local and national public transport. We have free prescription drugs for the retired, children and those on benefits. We have subsidised dental care, unarmed police and the toughest anti-gun laws in Europe. We have some of the lowest tax rates in Europe.
This to some Americans (I believe most Americans are liberals, however) is a very Socialist state. But we've been like since since WW2. We haven't turned into Cuba. What we have is a nation of healthier, happier workers. It's no utopia, believe me, but if I was made redundant I'd be better off here than in the US. The French nation has an almost identical system of government (America's was based on it) to yours and it has all the UK has and more.
I am a democratic socialist, and I definately believe that the Bill of Rights would need to be preserved under a socialist nation. I believe in a MORE democratic America, one where the main banks, corporations, and industries are democratically owned and controlled by the citizens. This has nothing to do with the constitution. And if you think Cuba and China are socialism, you aren't correct, they are totalitarian dictatorships.... democracy is the root of true socialism.
Communism is too idealistic, Capitalism is too cut throat, Socialism is too slow
There is no perfect system.
But still, we must bow to some of the better sides and theories of Socialism.
For example, Universal health care.
Now, all men are created equal, or so I've been told. So why should the life of one person be held at a higher value just because they have the ability to pay more? I really hate using Canada as an example, but Canada has Universal Healthcare. Everyone has the same coverage. Not only that but everything is covered. I think that's simply incredible. When you walk into a hospital in Canada, you may have to wait longer than here, but when you're taken care of you can be sure that you won't have to make the choice between stitching your face or eating tomorrow.
I think that is more freedom. Freedom from want.
Yes, in a socialist system we will have to pay more in taxes, but what is so wrong with paying taxes if you know that if you're in trouble, someone WILL look after you.
The redistribution of wealth, I think, is not such a bad idea. But it's bad enough that it's not worth defending. People who work less should not be able to get more just because they work less. But people who need more should get it. Like I said, it's a weak argument with too many problems and I haven't quite thought it through yet.
The final saving grace of socialism is that it takes strides toward making everyone equal. That's the basis of this country isn't it? All men are created equal? One voice is never heard louder than another, the individual is valued?
Why is it that Canadians are living the American Dream?
There is no perfect system.
But still, we must bow to some of the better sides and theories of Socialism.
For example, Universal health care.
Now, all men are created equal, or so I've been told. So why should the life of one person be held at a higher value just because they have the ability to pay more? I really hate using Canada as an example, but Canada has Universal Healthcare. Everyone has the same coverage. Not only that but everything is covered. I think that's simply incredible. When you walk into a hospital in Canada, you may have to wait longer than here, but when you're taken care of you can be sure that you won't have to make the choice between stitching your face or eating tomorrow.
I think that is more freedom. Freedom from want.
Yes, in a socialist system we will have to pay more in taxes, but what is so wrong with paying taxes if you know that if you're in trouble, someone WILL look after you.
The redistribution of wealth, I think, is not such a bad idea. But it's bad enough that it's not worth defending. People who work less should not be able to get more just because they work less. But people who need more should get it. Like I said, it's a weak argument with too many problems and I haven't quite thought it through yet.
The final saving grace of socialism is that it takes strides toward making everyone equal. That's the basis of this country isn't it? All men are created equal? One voice is never heard louder than another, the individual is valued?
Why is it that Canadians are living the American Dream?
Please remember that we have specific question to debate in this thread.
Can we ever move to socialism and retain the protections of the Bill of Rights?
It is not a debate about whether or not socialism is positive or negative.
Can we ever move to socialism and retain the protections of the Bill of Rights?
It is not a debate about whether or not socialism is positive or negative.
Has anyone here read the sci-fi trilogy "redmars" then "blue mars" then "green mars"- it really does an amazing job of addressing socialism, communism, capitalism, syndicism, oligarchy etc- as the residents of a newly free mars tries to set up a goverment- it is a great hypothetical setting for how to set up a "new paradigm" idea of goverment.
I think the interesting part of the novel deals with this subject-
how do you stop runaway capitalism like in America, where corporations hold all the real power, and wield more and more power over the goverment and the "elected officials" that are really extensions of this corporate power- and the state of the US about 20 years from now as mega-transnational corps have higher yearly revenues than all but the G-7.
To check that power- they start a social-capitalist hybird system, with corporate size limited to a certain size, and certain ecological checks and balances, with strong courts to protect the minority positions.
I think it is a really good start, and something our founding fathers also had in mind- checks and balances to keep one group from getting to strong and threatening the freedom of others- but who knew that corporations would grow so large and powerful?
I think certain aspects of socialism could work- with proper unassailable checks and balances.
I think the interesting part of the novel deals with this subject-
how do you stop runaway capitalism like in America, where corporations hold all the real power, and wield more and more power over the goverment and the "elected officials" that are really extensions of this corporate power- and the state of the US about 20 years from now as mega-transnational corps have higher yearly revenues than all but the G-7.
To check that power- they start a social-capitalist hybird system, with corporate size limited to a certain size, and certain ecological checks and balances, with strong courts to protect the minority positions.
I think it is a really good start, and something our founding fathers also had in mind- checks and balances to keep one group from getting to strong and threatening the freedom of others- but who knew that corporations would grow so large and powerful?
I think certain aspects of socialism could work- with proper unassailable checks and balances.
I am one of the few people on this board that advocate socialism, and eventually anarchy (which is a LONG way off yet)
I think we CAN move to socialism and retain the rights inheirent in the BoR. in fact, I think those rights can (and should) be expanded upon. I don't get how helping the less fortunate of society could even infringe on those rights to begin with.
[quote]Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[/quote]
I don't see how government "redistributing the wealth" or providing social services would effect this one. some religions preach helping those less advantaged then you (christianity, islam) certainly no socialist objects to religion helping others (though most socialists tend to be atheists, they all don't insist others give up their religion. did you know there are catholic churches in CUBA
it is also essential for the government (any government) to work properly that people be able to speak out on what they feel is wrong and nneds to be fixed (freedom of press, assembly, and redress of greivances.
I admit I can see why one might think that free speech would be banned un socialism. but let's look at the places socialism has taken root: russia; under the tsar, it was illegal to speak against the tsar. china; prior to mao taking power it was illegal to speak against the state. cuba; under batista it was common for people speaking against batista to be put to death. in all the places people associate with socialism, free speech was already illegal when they went to socialism. why would it be different here? because people are used to saying what they want. if a socialist government were to ban criticism of themselves, the people wouldn't take as kindly to it as others have.
I can also see why you might think religion would bee banned. most socialists reject religion as a for of illusory happines and insist on getting rid of the conditions that require illusory happiness and want to bring REAL happiness. [quote]Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.by karl marx, from:Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right[/quote] while I don't think that religion should be banned, I do feel it should be discouraged and people should learn not to need it.
[quote]Amendment 2: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]
again, I can't seeing how moving to a socialist economy would effect this one. I think it is a good idea for the people to be armed. not just certain people, ALL people. and not just certain guns either, but any gun you can afford. now I realize many liberals (which socialists tend to be) want gun control, but the fact is the government doesn't get uppity when the people are equipped to fight back if need be. in fact, an armed populace is necessary for a socialist system to work and keep from getting too corrupt (it's the same for any government really) even under capitalism we have people trying to do away with this one (I am not one of them
a liberal for gun rights! )
[quote]Amendment 3
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. [/quote]
again, I dont see how socialism could possibly effect this one at all. in fact, I don't see how ANY economic system could effect it at all. why do you assume people would need to quarter soldiers under socialism?
[quote]Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [/quote]
I can't see how socialism effects one's right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. seeing as it doesn't really exist now anyway, under a more capitalistic system, I don't see how a move to socialism would change this. why do you assume under socialism people would be able to be searched for no reson (as often happens now. in some places, even if you are not suspected of a crime, you MUST present ID (IE "papers" )or face arrest.
[quote]Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [/quote]
again, I can't see how moving to a system where the government provides social services and "redistributes the wealth" could effect this. the 5th amendment basically says you have the right to say nothing that could incriminate you. this is part of what the miranda rights are based on. (the other being amendment 6) why do you assume under socialism, people would be required to testify against themselves?
[quote]Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. [/quote]
again, how would a socialist system effect this? this is another case of assuming that socialism in america would be exactly like it happened in china and other places. no two countries develop the exact same way under any system. there are cultural differences that determine what a society in one place is like. and while the court system is corrupt, it is a basically good idea (jury trial) there are of course flaws in it. those just need to be addressed and fixed. for instance, a jury trial of MY peers should include people that are in early adulthood, not 50 and 60 year olds. one generatoin sometimes can't relate at all to another (baby boomers and my generation (sometimes called Y, as it is after gen X) why do you assume under socialism people wouldn't be entitled to competent representation (which under the current system means a lawyer in the court room, even if sleeping) a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury of your peers, nor be allowed to confront witnesses against him, call witnesses for him?
[quote]Amendment 7
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. [/quote]
again, this amendment seems irrelevant to socialism. all this one states is that in common law cases (also known as as civil law or civil suits, such as me sueing someone that hit me with their car) where the amount being asked for is 20$ or more, the people involved have a right to have a jury hear the case, and any facts they look at may not be reexamined by any court in america except where stated in civil law.
[quote]Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. [/quote]
again, I don't see how moving to socialism could effect this. it simply says that they can't require you to have to pay a million dollars to get out jail for something like jaywalking, 20,000 for 50 dollars worth of damage, or that they can't hang you on the wall or make you walk around in a tutu for an offense. how could socialism possibly effect if people are still treated according to human rights. again you seem to assume that what happened in one country will always happen elsewhere.
[quote]Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[/quote]
this simply says that just because other rights aren't in the list of rights in the constitution (bill of rights) doesn't mean they should be denied or belittled. I think THIS is the reason many people view the constitution as a living document. it seems to have been put in in case there were other rights the framers couldn't think of.
[quote]Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/quote]
this says that the powers not given to the government but given to the states by it are reserved to the states or the people. marijuana is a good example of this. colorado says that it is okay to use it in medical ways, but the feds say it is illegal no matter what. there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government the power to control drugs, so it is a power and decision left up to each individual state. the majority of power was supposed to rest with the state and local goverments. I think it should be local (state and county) governments that provide social services under socialism. in fact, it is the best way for it to work, so under socialism, the 10th amendment is highly relevant, and It wouldn't be effect by socialism but vice verse. so socialism would NEED the 10th amendment to work properly.
so [quote]Can we ever move to socialism and retain the protections of the Bill of Rights?[/quote]
I contend socialism will not effect the bill of rights, and under it we can easily retain (or rather regain) the protections of the bill of rights. I think it should also be stated that any public official that violates these rights should be immeadiatly removed for office and banned for life from holding an office of public trust.
I think we CAN move to socialism and retain the rights inheirent in the BoR. in fact, I think those rights can (and should) be expanded upon. I don't get how helping the less fortunate of society could even infringe on those rights to begin with.
[quote]Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[/quote]
I don't see how government "redistributing the wealth" or providing social services would effect this one. some religions preach helping those less advantaged then you (christianity, islam) certainly no socialist objects to religion helping others (though most socialists tend to be atheists, they all don't insist others give up their religion. did you know there are catholic churches in CUBA
it is also essential for the government (any government) to work properly that people be able to speak out on what they feel is wrong and nneds to be fixed (freedom of press, assembly, and redress of greivances.
I admit I can see why one might think that free speech would be banned un socialism. but let's look at the places socialism has taken root: russia; under the tsar, it was illegal to speak against the tsar. china; prior to mao taking power it was illegal to speak against the state. cuba; under batista it was common for people speaking against batista to be put to death. in all the places people associate with socialism, free speech was already illegal when they went to socialism. why would it be different here? because people are used to saying what they want. if a socialist government were to ban criticism of themselves, the people wouldn't take as kindly to it as others have.
I can also see why you might think religion would bee banned. most socialists reject religion as a for of illusory happines and insist on getting rid of the conditions that require illusory happiness and want to bring REAL happiness. [quote]Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.by karl marx, from:Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right[/quote] while I don't think that religion should be banned, I do feel it should be discouraged and people should learn not to need it.
[quote]Amendment 2: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]
again, I can't seeing how moving to a socialist economy would effect this one. I think it is a good idea for the people to be armed. not just certain people, ALL people. and not just certain guns either, but any gun you can afford. now I realize many liberals (which socialists tend to be) want gun control, but the fact is the government doesn't get uppity when the people are equipped to fight back if need be. in fact, an armed populace is necessary for a socialist system to work and keep from getting too corrupt (it's the same for any government really) even under capitalism we have people trying to do away with this one (I am not one of them
a liberal for gun rights! )[quote]Amendment 3
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. [/quote]
again, I dont see how socialism could possibly effect this one at all. in fact, I don't see how ANY economic system could effect it at all. why do you assume people would need to quarter soldiers under socialism?
[quote]Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [/quote]
I can't see how socialism effects one's right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. seeing as it doesn't really exist now anyway, under a more capitalistic system, I don't see how a move to socialism would change this. why do you assume under socialism people would be able to be searched for no reson (as often happens now. in some places, even if you are not suspected of a crime, you MUST present ID (IE "papers" )or face arrest.
[quote]Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [/quote]
again, I can't see how moving to a system where the government provides social services and "redistributes the wealth" could effect this. the 5th amendment basically says you have the right to say nothing that could incriminate you. this is part of what the miranda rights are based on. (the other being amendment 6) why do you assume under socialism, people would be required to testify against themselves?
[quote]Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. [/quote]
again, how would a socialist system effect this? this is another case of assuming that socialism in america would be exactly like it happened in china and other places. no two countries develop the exact same way under any system. there are cultural differences that determine what a society in one place is like. and while the court system is corrupt, it is a basically good idea (jury trial) there are of course flaws in it. those just need to be addressed and fixed. for instance, a jury trial of MY peers should include people that are in early adulthood, not 50 and 60 year olds. one generatoin sometimes can't relate at all to another (baby boomers and my generation (sometimes called Y, as it is after gen X) why do you assume under socialism people wouldn't be entitled to competent representation (which under the current system means a lawyer in the court room, even if sleeping) a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury of your peers, nor be allowed to confront witnesses against him, call witnesses for him?
[quote]Amendment 7
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. [/quote]
again, this amendment seems irrelevant to socialism. all this one states is that in common law cases (also known as as civil law or civil suits, such as me sueing someone that hit me with their car) where the amount being asked for is 20$ or more, the people involved have a right to have a jury hear the case, and any facts they look at may not be reexamined by any court in america except where stated in civil law.
[quote]Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. [/quote]
again, I don't see how moving to socialism could effect this. it simply says that they can't require you to have to pay a million dollars to get out jail for something like jaywalking, 20,000 for 50 dollars worth of damage, or that they can't hang you on the wall or make you walk around in a tutu for an offense. how could socialism possibly effect if people are still treated according to human rights. again you seem to assume that what happened in one country will always happen elsewhere.
[quote]Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[/quote]
this simply says that just because other rights aren't in the list of rights in the constitution (bill of rights) doesn't mean they should be denied or belittled. I think THIS is the reason many people view the constitution as a living document. it seems to have been put in in case there were other rights the framers couldn't think of.
[quote]Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/quote]
this says that the powers not given to the government but given to the states by it are reserved to the states or the people. marijuana is a good example of this. colorado says that it is okay to use it in medical ways, but the feds say it is illegal no matter what. there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government the power to control drugs, so it is a power and decision left up to each individual state. the majority of power was supposed to rest with the state and local goverments. I think it should be local (state and county) governments that provide social services under socialism. in fact, it is the best way for it to work, so under socialism, the 10th amendment is highly relevant, and It wouldn't be effect by socialism but vice verse. so socialism would NEED the 10th amendment to work properly.
so [quote]Can we ever move to socialism and retain the protections of the Bill of Rights?[/quote]
I contend socialism will not effect the bill of rights, and under it we can easily retain (or rather regain) the protections of the bill of rights. I think it should also be stated that any public official that violates these rights should be immeadiatly removed for office and banned for life from holding an office of public trust.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.