Press Ignorance Over The History of The Constitution

 

 Walter E. Williams has always been one of those in academia and outside that has always made sense to me and he did again earlier this month when he discussed a Time Magazine article regarding the Founders.  The assertions that the author, Richard Stengel, makes in his piece shows an utter lack of understanding of how the Constitution was created. In his response, Mr. Williams made it clear that he  understands how the document that governs our country was constructed.

Mr. Stengel is an example of how people lie in today's world to prove their point, a view I expressed in a previous posting.  If the author had listened and learned his civics lessons in grade school or high school, he would understand where he erred. Where are his editors or is their knowledge of history so poor that they too do not understand or is their purpose to mis-inform? Regardless of the reason or rationale, it speaks very poorly of Time Magazine and its editors.

We read Time to gain information, unbiased reporting of the facts. We do not subscribe to get opinion, lies and deceit. If we want editorials there is a spot, it is called the editorial page where we expect to read the opinions of the Editors.   If Time continues down this path, it will soon be the same as the recently closed "News of the World" which tapped cell phones and who knows what else to get their scoops.

If those in the news business believe that they can continue down this  path because the "freedom of the press" will protect them, they are fools.  With this freedom as well as all freedoms comes responsibility. Only those who practice the judicious use of the ability to write freely are preserving it. One cannot say or write anything that comes to mind as that was not the intention of the Founders. They wanted the press to freely investigate and report and not to be hamstrung by government leaders dictating what should be reported.

If the press, a newspaper, magazine, radio or television news program continually misrepresents the issues, do they deserve to be protected by the Constitution? There are many who do not believe they should.

How does this effect talk radio or blogs for instance.  In my humble opinion, this is completely different.  These are opinion outlets just like the Editorial page.  When you tune in Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes or read this blog, do you expect to read or hear all the appropriate facts? No, it is the hosts opinion you hear. You may agree or disagree with the view, but the host is not telling you that he has given you all you need to be informed. That does not mean they should either. Neither does the Editorial page for that matter.

The "talkers" or "bloggers" are covered under another right. The freedom of speech.  They are not the press nor should they be considered as that.  They help the public discuss, chew on, and decide their opinions. Much of the information these people use to discuss the "topic of the day" come from the media which makes the balanced reporting necessary by the press even more important. 

The press has a valuable place in a free society. To abuse that right by unbalanced reporting, is to minimize the significant value of the freedom of press. Those who abuse this right daily are saying that facts and balance are only important when trying to lead us to a certain decision. That is not the value of the press.

Here is Mr. Williams' article:

Walter E. Williams

Gross Media Ignorance

7/6/2011 |

There's little that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution. If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect for the founding values of our nation.

Stengel says: "The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms -- freedom of speech, assembly, religion -- but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College."
My column last week addressed the compromise whereby each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. Had slaves been counted as whole people, slaveholding states would have had much greater political power. I agree the framers were not gods and were not infallible, but they had far greater wisdom and principle than today's politicians.
The framers held democracy and majority rule in deep contempt. As a matter of fact, the term democracy appears in none of our founding documents. James Madison argued that "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Stengel's majoritarian vision sees it as anti-democratic that South Dakota and California both have two senators, but the framers wanted to reduce the chances that highly populated states would run roughshod over thinly populated states. They established the Electoral College to serve the same purpose in determining the presidency.
The framers recognized that most human abuses were the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Because of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the language used throughout our Constitution. The Bill of Rights says Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe, shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections. I've always argued that if we depart this world and see anything resembling the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we'll know we're in hell. A bill of rights in heaven would be an affront to God.
Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, two-thirds vote to override a veto and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.
Stengel says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so." That statement is beyond ignorance. The 10th Amendment reads: "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." Stengel apparently has not read The Federalist No. 45, in which James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Stengel's article is five pages online, and I've only commented on the first. There's also little in the remaining pages that reflects understanding and respect for our nation's most important document