"limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy."Check it out folks; it has come to this,
Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of The ConstitutionIf you would like to give Wilder Publications your opinion on their warning labels - head on over to Amazon and join the party, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”
The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."
.Hat tip URR.
20 comments:
Fortunately, in this case the Free Market is acting in a self-correcting manner.
This company is taking a beating in reviews and online publications because of this crapweasely attitude. Over to Amazon, this action is being pilloried, and rightly so, by reviewers.
Sales are down, and what with other publishers making the Constitution available, it's a no-brainer for consum,ers to vote with their wallet.
The really, really, really, sad thing about this is that while repugnant and misguided, it comes as absolutely no shock to me.
<span>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (though the rights of certain classes, preferences, races, and ethnicities will be officially championed over others), endowed by our all-knowing government with certain inalienable rights, among these are handouts, entitlements, and the pursuit of endless grievances against people who have more than they do even if they worked hard to get it."</span>
Thank God (and I mean God) that we have these documents that allow companies like this to have the freedom to be so stupid.
They are that blind to understand that simple concept.............................
You veterans out there defended the rights and freedoms of this company to put this garbage out, and you defended the rights of the people who protest this company. That's a beautiful thing - and thanks for doing it. You have my undying respect........................
But even though companies have the 'right' to say such moronic things, where are the principle of the company who should also have the hahonas to be smart enough not to put out such drivel. I'm seeing a prematurely gray haired 40 something women who put this out.....................
Cognitive dissonance.
I prefer to think of the Constitution and Decleration as being for all time.
Unless, of course, you buy into the "living document" crap.
Who knew the Constitution was subject to copyright?...
Whiskey. Tango. FOXTROT! I'm not even American and this appalls me!
I denounce you for badthink!
I hope this doesn't get me banned, but I don't think this nation ahs been this divided on basic principles since 1860.
Time to visit ammoman.com.
Re-education for me, Penalty for not expressing the government-authorized personal opinion.
Don't be too hard on these guys, They appear to put the same disclaimer on the copyright page of their other offerings I looked at on Amazon.
Interesting outfit. They appear to specialize in reprinting public domain and off copyright works. Lots of Turn of the Century self help/power of positive thinking books, Greek classics, etc.
What? You haven't been there yet???
Well, living document kinda "is" there, ever heard of amendments?
Back in 1700s it was ok to have slaves, women couldn't vote etc.
No, Ewok, it wasn't "ok to have slaves," it was legal. Big difference. And if you were familiar with that part of American history, you would know that many Southerners hoped that slavery would eventually be cut off, then extinguished.
As for women voting, when had that ever happened before the late 19th century? Any proficient student of history is quite capable of explaining how that came about, and why the cultural situation changed.
The Constitution is not a "living" document; that view involves a fluid & dynamic interpretation which involves no comprehensible fundamental legal or social principles. Basically, a "living" document means whatever the highest-paid lawyers wish it to mean.
The essence of the American political experience, on the other hand, is the negation of the "living document" approach. The document is sacrosanct, until amended; after which the (legally & democratically passed) amendment then takes on the full force of written law. No "interpretation" necessary
Yes, a great virtue of the US system is its ability to modify itself to suit the state of the world by amendment system. Sometimes (prohibiton) amendments were repealed after shown to be not working. But the constitution was never meant to be unchanging and rigid. It was within the peoples right to change it via chosen representatives.
ewok,
The intent of the framers was that amending the Constitution was to be very difficult, have permanence when required, and only done after a great deal of deliberation and debate.
Hillary Clinton, et. al. believe "living document" to be subject to the whims of the "view of the month club". See her rant about elimination of the Electoral College in 2000, and the "outdated" concept of the Second Amendment.
Corection: Time to visit ammoman.com AGAIN.
Been there so often they now answer the phone "Hi Mark! The usual?"
Post a Comment