Some Comments on

Some Comments on "Chipping Away on Our Rights"

In his article "Chipping Away" (City Life, May 13-19) Steve Sebelius correctly points out that while most of the public "sleeps" (meaning they are preoccupied with more mundane affairs, like lining up for tickets to the latest "Star Wars" movie), the Bill of Rights protections are being eroded. I would like to add some of my own views on this subject by placing this in an historical context.

The first ten amendments of the U. S. Constitution occurred within the context of a time that the new republic was just starting to show its true colors as a deeply class divided society. It was clear at the outset that, while overturning one form of aristocracy in England, the "founders" soon created another one. Instead of being based on an old feudal order based upon hereditary rights and tradition, this was based upon property holdings. The new United States was, for all practical purposes, under the rule of a few, very rich, white males. (For evidence just look closely at the social backgrounds of those who created the Constitution and those holding the most powerful positions during the first 30 or so years of the republic.)

Of course most Americans supported "freedom" - at least in the abstract. But those who made the rules wanted the ultimate in freedom - to "gain wealth, forgetting all but self," to paraphrase one of Adam Smith's "vile maxims of the market." In fact, James Madison once said quite frankly that the main goal of government is to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." One of his colleagues, the famous John Jay, stated matter of factly that "The people who own the country ought to govern it."

The Bill of Rights was the result of often intense struggle in the years following the American Revolution. The United States Constitution itself was based upon and reflective of very narrow class interests. As historian Howard Zinn observes, when economic interests are seen within the political clauses of the Constitution, then this body of work is "not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privilege, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support." It is true that the Constitution protected property for, after all, those people during that time who owned property. However, a few people owned a lot of property, while most owned little or no property (for certain African slaves and Native Americans were completely propertyless, and women had no rights at all).

Those in power - then as now - certainly realized that the extent of one's "freedom" varies proportionately with one's wealth and power. Thus, we are all "free" to have an attorney of our choice, except only a few can pay for the services of the very best legal defense. One interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that these were concessions made so as to avoid open class warfare. "We'll give these 'rabble' some rights in order to keep them quiet," they must have said during private meetings behind closed doors. "We'll let them have 'freedom of speech,' but they better not take it too far." Thus, you can say what you want in public, but don't dare advocate the overthrow of the government, despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence suggested as much. Don't protest working conditions and try to form unions. Women should not march to get the vote. In both of these cases, when they did, they were beaten and thrown into jail!

The U.S. Constitution was made even more acceptable to the general public after the passage of the Bill of Rights. And here is the essence of how a small group of extremely wealthy and powerful people rule: they do so by making it appear that the government, and also the law, is the guardian of all the people and their basic rights - to bear arms, to petition, to worship, to assemble, to speak, to be tried fairly by a "jury of their peers," etc. What was never made clear, notes Zinn, "was the shakiness of everyone's liberty when entrusted to a government of the rich and the powerful." Indeed, to protect everyone's "contract" does "seem like an act of fairness, of equal treatment, until one considers that contracts made between rich and poor, between employer and employee, landlord and tenant, creditor and debtor, generally favor the more powerful of the two parties. Thus to protect these contracts is to put the great power of the government, its laws, courts, sheriffs, police, on the side of the privileged --- and to do it not, as in premodern times, as an exercise of brute force against the weak but as a matter of law." Not too long after the passage of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Congress in 1798 passed the Sedition Act which abridged the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment!

Endless examples could be given to emphasize one main point: those who can grant "rights" can surely take them away very easily. And another point, often overlooked when discussing "justice" is that you cannot have equal justice in an unequal society. To paraphrase French philosopher Anatole France, there is a "majestic equality" in the law in that it prohibits both the rich and the poor from sleeping on park benches.

A current example might make these points even more emphatic: the "war on drugs." In the first place, why the "war" metaphor? When one declares a "war" it suggests that there is an "enemy" that must somehow be "conquered and then, following this, "contained" in some way. Several excellent studies have demonstrated the fact that those who designed this "war" knew exactly what kinds of our citizens would be targeted - and in this case the "Bill of Rights" would be ignored (after all, this is war!) - racial minorities and the poor, especially African-Americans. In other words, a "war" has been declared on the poor and racial minorities. The fact that drugs used by the privileged, regardless of their "dangerousness," are not illegal, and the drugs used by the poor and racial minorities (actually less dangerous) are declared as illegal, is no accident. When you want to control a population, simply pass laws and set up enforcement mechanisms that will guarantee such control - all under the guise of the "law."

The result of this "war"? Since the early 1980s (when the "war on drugs" began to really take off), the overall crime rate has barely changed, and in fact violence since then has increased slightly and the rate of incarceration in the nation's prisons has almost tripled! And guess what kind of offense accounts for the vast majority of prison sentences? That's right, drugs! And guess who has been the most likely recipient of such sentences? That's right, racial minorities, especially African-Americans. The rate of incarceration of African-Americans is around 8 times greater than the rate for whites! In fact, in 1992 African-Americans became the majority within our prisons for the first time in history.

As for the Bill of Rights, those who have received the brunt of the enforcement of drug laws have gradually had most of their rights stripped away. Especially their right to vote. In fact, nationwide, thousands of African-Americans have had this right taken away as a result of a felony conviction (mostly drugs) - according to one study, 13% of all African-Americans can no longer vote, compared to around 2% of the general population.

As we reflect on the Bill of Rights, we should remember that they do not exist in a social and political vacuum. "Equal rights" are good in principle and the Bill of Rights should be cherished and defended. However, given the distribution of wealth and power in our present society (over half of the wealth is in the hands of about 1% of the population), such "rights" become meaningless unless we recognize this context and act on it. After all, this is suppose to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," rather than "of the rich, by the rich and for the rich."

Update: Our rights continued to be Achipped away@ with the passage of the so-called APatriot Act@ (and the proposed Patriot Act II) and Attorney General Ashcroft=s assault against the Bill of Rights, all in the name of the Awar on terrorism.@