A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.
Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, 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.”
The warning seems to be offending more people than the documents themselves.
#17
Grow a spine.
At a 1962 dinner for 49 Nobel laureates, President John F. Kennedy quipped that the event was “the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”
One of the greatest men of all time.
cloewe
Only disclaimer needed: “Some exceptions apply. Void where prohibited.“
Yes, the Constitution requires a warning label.
Every government on Earth including our own is opposed to such limitations.
It does not matter if these documents carry a warning or that they even exist anymore.
The matter now is that The Republic no longer provides representation to the majority of the population.
Until the present form of government is scrapped and replaced with one that can function to provide representation, these documents might as well be as relevant as old Sumer tablets or hieroglyphs from ancient Egypt.
Cursor_
The United States of America Constitution requires a warning label? No. It deserves a standing ovation from the rest of the civilised world. A long, hard clap. Cheer. Hurrah. Huzzah. Fireworks. Operas. Exclamation marks. Capital letters. You, Yanks, saved the civilised world so many bloody times we lost count. God bless you all, and your warning labelled constitution. Put out the orange safety cones around it. Redirect peak traffic around it. Our debt to you, is beyond measure.
#19–DA==motivated enough to reply but not motivated enough to look it up? Heh, heh. You are not a happy camper.
“Words have a meaning, and a context.”–why would any word used in documents from the 18th Century have the same meaning they do in the 21st? Ignorance.
“We think with words, and with them ideas flower, or fail.”–Thomas Jefferson wrote most of the Declaration. We all know the original phrase (from John Locke) was “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.” This was change to “pursuit of happiness”===these three rights being the “inalienable rights of man.”
Jefferson was a “classically” educated man reading philosophers of the time who all read “all” the philosphers back to – - – wait for it – - – - the Greeks.
And thats why Greece is rightfully called the cradle of civilization, because ideas first expressed there found their way into the greatest documents of human freedom yet created.
Tired of being so pedantic before my first cappuccino, Happiness means: a good life lived well. A true and sold happiness that does not lead to despair. It includes a regard for the welfare of our fellow man.
Now, where is my powdered chocolate shaker?
As to the individual character of Jefferson, Washington and so many other of our Founding Fathers: money corrupts everything.
# 1 bobbo – Define Happiness: A–as used today B–as used in the Dec. Bet ya can’t do it.
I can only define my own happiness and it’s more of a show and tell. Oh, wait – here she comes now!
Maricopa–not true. I’ve seen you post intelligently before. Still, your position being placed in those around you is closer to the mark than many.
“Money” is a bit vague at #26, I was thirsty and my caffeine low level light was on. Greed would be a much better word.
This is just an example of editorial bias. By attaching a disclaimer to these documents, the implication is made to the reader that the views expressed in them are no longer legitimate or relavent now.
As to the remark about language changing over time, yes it does. And that is why arguments before the Supreme Court often spend a great deal of time discussing what those words meant at the time a particular law was passed. What a word means now is irrelevent when determining how to apply a law written 100+ years ago.
#30–SL==the editorial disclaimer says what it says. YOU can add whatever bias you wish but it is seen as just that. Is slavery and lack of women’s sufferage legitimate or relevant now==or is it something that every kiddie should learn to place in its historical context when they are ready to understand such things?
What is your “real” complaint?
# 13 bobbo said,”Is it legal or not to burn the US flag?”
Yes. Unfortunately, Texas vs Johnson allows you to burn the flag in protest.
What do you do with damaged or worn out flags? You may burn them. You certainly do not throw them away. Alternatively you may take them to the American Legion and they will dispose of them honorably by burning.
There is a difference between the two. The one I take a dim view on is burning a shiny new flag in protest. There are better ways to protest our country than burning the flag: posters, letters to Congress, etc. The flag burners do it in front of others. When you retire a flag, it is not done with an audience and you replace it with a shiny new flag.
#19 pete said, “I suppose that black people are worth 3/5th of a person for the census is a product of its time.”
Not true. Slaves of any race were worth 3/5 of a person in the census. Free blacks as well as free whites were worth one person in the census. Your whole point is moot because the 3/5ths thing has been superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 says, “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
See, race isn’t even mentioned.
1, Bobbo,
If you agree with the warning, then you would be in favor of the Constitution of being a living document that can be reinterpreted in today’s context…. or so it seems.
7, Bobbo,
11, Bobbo,
But this should be no excuse for reinterpretting historical documents out of context. Especially the ones that are supposed to list the powers of our government. Otherwise, you’ll have liberals arguing that the general welfare clause was meant to cover universal health care.
A: Men == every person
B: “Men” was with respect to rich white landowners.
18, Canucklehead,
If you put a modern literal interpretation of his words, you’re right. But that would be out of context of what he meant. And if you understood his context, then no he’s not being hypocritical.
19, Pete,
So what? Barack seems to subscribe to the one drop rule. Old habits die hard.
24, Cursor_,
It’s been done before. The founding fathers helped fund the Revolutionary War…. when we became our own country the central government was so week under the Articles of Confederation, the founding fathers were not able to be repaid for their loans. What happened? Secret closed door meetings to replace the Article of Confederation with the Constitution so that they had enough power to be repaid.
Response to 11 should have read like this: “Especially the ones that are supposed to limit the powers of our government.”
#34–Guyver==lets discuss because it is of interest to me and history books generally fail in their exposition.
you say–” “All men are created equal”
Thomas Jefferson, slaveowner, hypocrite
If you put a modern literal interpretation of his words, you’re right. But that would be out of context of what he meant. And if you understood his context, then no he’s not being hypocritical. ///
Jefferson was a hypocrite regardless of context. He knew all men are created equal, but he kept slaves himself. How is that not hypocritical now as well as then. What is your context? Please don’t be tangentially irrelevant.
The label should have said, “Quaint document no longer observed if inconvenient.”
Disclaimer should read “You should read these documents on a monthly schedule, do not impose modern sensibilities on them but embrace them. Knowing that a group like, the Founding Fathers being in the same place and time, was an act of Providence or extremely good luck.”
# 36 bobbo – Jefferson … knew all men are created equal, but he kept slaves himself. How is that not hypocritical[?]
Not really hypocritical. Afterall, blacks were not really considered to be human beings.
Cam I have a dozen cannoli, please?
Warning:
The above listed comments are PERSONAL RIGHTS for the individual ONLY. These and the 10 commandments are ALL that the individual needs.
They have been Expressly created from what we have seen of the past, and what is REQUIRED for a better future. Keep them to heart. WE give these to you ONLY. NOW TRY to keep them. Fore without them, you will find that the PAST will come back.