|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
Arguments for a certain way of life rooted in the Constitution are ubiquitous these days. From television commercials to friends on facebook to op-ed columns in the newspaper (do people still read those? I sometimes do) a popular argument method is to say certain things are protected in the Constitution. Obviously, sometimes these arguments are relevant because they could end up in court cases that decide the limits of what laws our government can pass. Not to mention that the Bill of Rights protects the people from government interference rather than enforcing certain principles. Still, my point is that rarely these days do people base their arguments on policy.
It's a principled stance, but the problem is that everyone seems to think the Constitution stands for the principles they want it to stand for. Compounding the problem is that many of the people making these arguments don't really understand the Constitution, what it means, or have no idea how it has been interpreted.
This segment from the popular television show, "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart", illustrates this point beautifully by poking fun at Fox News pundits on their contrasting views of upholding the Second Amendment's right to bear arms while completely disregarding the protection from unlawful searches and seizures of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what side you agree with, there is some merit in being consistent. But even more importantly, perhaps we can look at practical implications of proposed policies rather than simply relying on principled Constitutional stances.