|
I agree with Backlash Cometh. I think the term civil libertarian has different shades of meaning to different people, as witnessed by this thread. And the Bill of Rights is interpreted very differently by different people, so simply saying that you "believe" in the Bill of Rights is meaningless.
Personally, I have never found that the term civil libertarian resonates for me. But I certainly adhere to many of the principles you may think a civil libertarian would. But not others...
Am I a civil libertarian? I don't know.
I believe strongly in freedom of speech, press and religion. I believe in the absolute separation of church and state (yes, the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance violates this; displaying the ten commandments in a government building like a courtroom violates this; praying in public schools violates this; teaching creationism in public schools violates this; all wacky faith-based initiatives violate this). I believe the government should not discriminate based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference. I do NOT believe in legislating morality or many of the paternalistic laws frequently cited: the act of sex between any number of consenting adults of any gender should be legal, regardless of which orafices were penetrated or whether money was exchanged; and same-sex marriage should be fully legal. I believe that drugs should be legal, although I would accept regulation on many of them. I do not believe that the drinking age should be artificially high at 21. I believe the government should have no say whatsoever over a zygote, embryo, or fetus while it remains inside the body of a woman. I believe that citizens should have access to the courts.
I also believe that the government can--and should--be a force for good in society. Wise and thorough regulation in numerous areas, including the environment, can help individuals lead safer, healthier lives and can help achieve justice. I believe in extensive environmental, health, safety, and transportation regulation. I believe that a modern civil society provides basic social services to its citizens, including healthcare, public health, education, public assistance. I believe in a significant and robust public sector in general. And I believe that the government has the right to control guns.
I believe that people who think they take the Bill of Rights completely literally are misguided: of course we interpret the Bill of Rights. We interpret the freedom of speech to apply to email messages or talking on the telephone even though these technologies were not envisioned by the writers of the Bill of Rights. We interpret property rights to extend to intellectual property. We have to. It is fundamentally impossible not to. The flexibility of the constitution is one of its most important features and has allowed it to function longer than any other.
People who claim to interpret the Bill of Rights literally usually do so regarding the Second Amendment, thinking falsely that this bolsters their claim that gun control is wrong or unconstitutional. Demanding a literal interpretation of the constitution is not only ludicrous and fundamentally impossible, but also fallacious: the Second Amendment provides only for the members of a militia to "bear arms," (guns are never mentioned by the Second Amendment, only "arms").
The Second Amendment provides only for the members of a militia to "bear arms," because there wasn't a military like ours today, with permanent bases containing full-time soldiers. People who were part of any "army" lived at their own houses and had other professions, which they left to fight when necessary. And, by necessity, they took their "arms" home with them. Therefore, the Second Amendment does not provide a universal right to "bear arms." Even if it did, the amendment mentions only "arms," which are, of course, subject to reinterpretation according to technology. Does this include knives? Bayonets? Handguns? Fully automatic machine guns? Nuclear bombs? Biological and chemical agents? Dirty bombs made with nails?
|