Was the Constitution an Ethical Document?

[Keith Broaders]

An ethical document is one that consists of ethical objectives and the ethical means to be used to achieve it. When the proposed outcome is ethical but the means to achieve it are unethical, that document at best is only partially ethical.

If telling only a portion of the truth is a lie, then a document that authorizes our government to violate the rights of some of the people while providing special benefits and privileges to others is clearly unethical.

With this definition in mind, the Constitution for the United States has ethical objectives, but seeks to achieve them with unethical means. The goal of establishing a nation where the God given rights of the people would be secure was certainly worthy, but the means provided by the founders were based on a false premise.

The Constitution was written by a collection of rich, white men and their document was based on the false premise that not all people were equal under the provisions of the Constitution.

The Constitution was written for the rich white men that owned property. The women, indigenous people and the slaves had no rights and were denied equality under the law.

As far as I am concerned this was a humongous flaw and it would be impossible for an unethical document to produce freedom, equality and justice for all.

A Constitution is either ethical or it is not. If the document contains virtuous objectives, but authorizes unethical means to achieve those objectives, the Constitution is unethical.

It is impossible to obtain an ethical outcome when unethical means are employed to achieve it.

The Declaration of Independence asserts that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights which include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was understood by our founders that we also had property rights that could not be abolished, amended or violated.

Yet, in Article I of the Constitution, these rich white men authorized the Congress to take property from the people in the form of taxes. The taking of a man' s property without his consent is theft and is an unethical act of aggression. When a Constitution authorizes the use of force to compel an individual give up his property under the threat of violence, the Constitution becomes an instrument in the hands of tyrants.

.

[thomas Norman Stephan]

 

  So it has and is.

[Steve Curry]

If this is the case, and it is, the Constitution, otherwise known as a "Contract," is null & void upon its conception, implementation, execution, and interpretation!!  And, here is how we've arrived at our present condition!!!!!

All that is left, is a man & woman on the land, with skies of blue & rainbows with the passing storm!

[Eric R Rhodes]

Wow, Keith that is a heck of a solid argument to make on the very day the Constitution was signed which was today, it was signed 11 years after the declaration of independence. So on September 18, 1887 this Country was finally formed, but is still not done being formed to this day, but even that date is in question, some say it was signed into law in 1892. This makes for some serious and much needed research on the history of the Constitution and when it was finally ratified. Rhode Island was the last one to sign the Constitution by all counts historically, and the colony of Plymouth Township (later on to become the State of Rhode Island) was the last to sign the declaration as well. If I recall all of this correctly that is.

How can we have a class of specially privileged citizens who hold elected offices, some of them on the bench called Judges, who granted them selves judicial immunity, and the rest of us low lifers do not have such immunity? What's up with that? Does any one else see it that way? I'll bet most here haven't even given that a thought...I thought all men were created as equals, I guess not!

Does anyone care to share their opinion on Judicial immunity and equality and how incompatible the two are?

[Bob Podolsky]

Well said, Keith! For more detailed information about the relationship between ethical means and ethical ends, I recommend the article Ethical Means and Ends. And for a still more comprehensive view of the topic, I suggest reading Ethics, Law, and Government.

These 2 articles can provide a very solid understanding of how the real world works in regard to "authority" - its fictitious nature, shady origins, and tyrannical culture.