Every writer knows that facing criticism is part of the job, with the presumption that criticism is positive, constructive, and based on accuracy. Friday morning I found myself charged with misconceptions and inaccuracy by Mr. Norton. Thought I could live with it, but find I cannot. I am glad he does not claim to be a constitutional scholar.
I am sure some of Mr. Norton”s unhappiness is due to my language and approach. I should have used the term “incentive” rather than “bribe.” No question. And my opinion of the Second Amendment was inadequate, I should have specified “in today”s America” and included the Third as well. I find Mr. Norton”s reaction to my opinions, both on the Second and on transparency, concerning in terms of what I feel is good for the county.
My position on the Second is one of neutral acceptance. In 2013, I don”t think it (or the Third) has the value they once had. Might be otherwise if the Second had to do with “ownership” rather than use. I do worry that the Second acts to separate a class of personal property that differs in treatment from other classes as automobiles, boats, etc., that are subject to ownership and use registration. Differing from Mr. Norton, I do think the country”s safety would be enhanced by greater transparency ? and in a lot of other applications as well as gun ownership. He also asks “who is responsible for determining what our rights are? A re-read of the Constitution will tell him.
The Constitution itself is a pretty-much unique and original document, the results of politics and contention with bargains, trades, and compromises the bases for virtually every sentence.
For example: The creation of the Senate giving equal representation to all states regardless of population (to mollify small states); and settling that a slave was worth 60 percent of a “person” while remaining (by law) “property.” The first 12 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, on the other hand, largely follows the English Bill of Rights coding of 1689. Our Second amendment is drawn almost exactly from it. New Yorkers were so upset that the British didn”t follow their own rules that they made the inclusion mandatory for their ratification.
Several other states felt the same way. The Bill remained a work in progress some two years after the Constitution was completed and sent to the states for ratification in the first stage of the two stage process.
Politics and self-serving were rife at the conventions and if today”s Senate rules had been in effect, we would not have our Constitution or Bill. Americans should recognize the framers of the Constitution were fully aware the document would require revision over time and they designed the amendment process. They did not see the document itself the way many people nowadays do ? as holy writ, never to be changed, but, rather, that changes in interpretation would, and should, be reflected in changes in the Constitution over time to better fit the feelings of the people. Chief Justice John Marshall noted (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819) that the Constitution was “intended to endure for ages to come and consequently to be adjusted to the various crises of human affairs.”
Guthrie “Guff” Worth
Lakeport
