I agree that the Constitution does not protect against the power of money or ensure that people have right to what they need to make the rights it does give us meaningful. However, your narrow focus on the federal Constitution ignores the fact that it is neither a source of nor a limit on most of the law we deal with, which is state (legislative) law or state administrative law. State law is all that is at issue with the mayor's action against the teacher's union.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not an expert, obviously, but my argument is rather simple: The
> US constitution guarantees few rights to begin with, and those
> guaranteed are limited to property rights, the right to bear arms, and
> the right to a due process (if you can afford one) - see the NYT piece
> I quoted earlier below. That means that property or gun rights will
> trump human rights if there is any challenge to new legislation at
> state or federal level. The fact that even a mildly progressive
> legislation like Obamacare had to be justified by the Congress power
> to regulate interstate commerce (i.e. private property) speak
> volumes.
>
> Or to put it differently, the US Constitution per se may not limit
> human rights but it does not offer sufficient protections of them
> against monied interests that are rather powerful here. It is like a
> cop that chooses to look the other way when a crime is being
> committed.
>
> Here are the relevant excerpts from the NYT piece.
>
>
> "The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees
> relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme
> Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original
> meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little
> current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s
> waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power
> and prestige.
>
> In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the
> trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating
> systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy
> Windows 3.1,” he said.
>
> "The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious
> by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford
> Levinson wrote in 2006 in “Our Undemocratic Constitution,” “the U.S.
> Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution
> currently existing in the world today.” (Yugoslavia used to hold that
> title, but Yugoslavia did not work out.)
>
> Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale,
> replacing them on average every 19 years. By odd coincidence, Thomas
> Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every
> constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the
> earth belongs always to the living generation.” These days, the
> overlap between the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those
> most popular around the world is spotty.
>
> Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a
> speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government
> establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with
> the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many
> words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement
> to food, education and health care.
>
> It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions
> protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its
> brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)"
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
>
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk