The (un)Fairness Doctrine of 1787

What would have happened if someone had tried to insert the fairness doctrine in the constitution?

Page 1 of 2 | Prev 12Next»

The constitution gives the right to freedom of the press, speech and religion clearly in the first of ten amendments which were in the constitution when it was first ratified. The framers of the constitution had just written a document that although based on a lot of knowledge of history was revolutionary. These colonists had just a few years before challenged Great Britain, the super power of the day and won their independence, something few societies had ever done before. They had framed a document called the Articles of Confederation in the early days and this far from perfect document had served the new nation for a time. Ironically it was the rebellious South's desire to return to this older system as a way to preserve slavery that brought death and destruction to the land in the form of the War of the Rebellion.

But now in 1787 with more than ten years of experience it was needful to have a more permanent document. Men met and the dialog was not always cordial. They wanted to do it right and there were good men there with diverse ideas and some good men who refused to go because they were concerned about the outcome. This was in effect another revolution, one of words on paper. The very meeting elicited the comment from Patrick Henry that he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy" and he refused to attend. Rhode Island refused to send a delegation.

They finished the constitution that established the government but did not elicit enough support to be ratified. The principal reason for this failure was the inattention to individual rights. All had seen the abuses of power in Europe, repression of speech and press. Violation of the rights to bear arms, to assemble, to practice ones faith, to not be forced into self incrimination, protection from unreasonable search were rampant. They wanted these protections and they wanted them to be ingrained into the fabric of the nation's fundamental law. Hence the first ten amendments are appropriately called, "The Bill of Rights". .

But allow me to digress and show you how this may have played out behind the closed doors of the convention. On that day Norman Pelosi, the fifty sixth delegate stood and addressed Adams, Franklin and the others.

"This idea of freedom of speech and the press is way over rated. What will happen to us if people are just allowed to go out and set up a soap box on the corner of the street and criticize the government? We could be found in a place of loosing power. We need to regulate this."

"But Norman, this freedom is foundational. Without the right of free self expression there can be no freedom."

"Look Ben, this right of free self expression is way over rated. The people need to learn that we are the ones who know what is best for them and we will tell them what they should think. Without this the government may fall."

"Norman, this is what the crown and other tyrants did with us when we were colonies. How are we better than them if we do this?"

"Tom, this isn't the point. We are in power. What right do they have to tell us we should do things their way?"

"Norman, were you not here with us when we framed the preamble, "that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Don"t you see that?"

"John. Be realistic. That is good rhetoric for the masses. We have to protect themselves from their own stupidity. What if they got up and advocated you were not fit to hold your seat in government?"

"Actually some of my constituents did that last month. I was there for the meeting. After I listened to their speeches, I left somewhat humbled that I had supported a bill without reading and considering it more carefully. Before I left I asked for permission to speak and they granted it."

"You asked for permission to speak? Do these people think they have a right to criticize you publicly?"

"I felt I should ask. It was his meeting. They came to hear him, not me."

"Don't they know we are the leaders?"

"I serve. I told the leader to run against me in the next election."

"You what?"

"I told him that he should run against me in the next election. If he wins I will gladly turn my seat to him and support him in any way I can. If they do not have confidence in me, I can no longer serve them. I should step down. And I asked that till the election if they thought I was supporting something bad for them, send a rider down to tell me."

Page 1 of 2 | Prev 12Next»
3 Liked It
I Like It!
Related Articles
Fairness Doctrine
We Need to Be Like the Rest of the World
More Articles by Ralph Brandt
The Union Checkoff Proposal - a Path to Terror
The Democrat Bench: Reasons to Worry
Comments (0)
Post Your Comment:
Name:  
Copy the code into this box:  
Post comment with your Triond credentials?

Popular Tags
Powered by
Inside Newsflavor

Alternative

Entertainment

Opinions

Politics

Satire

World

Popular Writers
Newsflavor
About Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Services
Submit an Article
Advertise with Us
Contact
© 2007 Copyright Stanza Ltd. All Rights Reserved.