home

Life, Liberty . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:53:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Playing gotcha on the exact phrasings in the Constitution is pretty silly and Professor Althouse tries it on The NYTimes:

"The New York Times editors think that the phrase 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is in the Constitution..." Oops! But if it's a living Constitution, surely, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have evolved there by now. Let's run with it! Possibly to things the NYT won't even like.

(Emphasis supplied.) For the record, a pretty important amendment to the Constitution, the 14th, states:

. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Emphasis supplied.) Not precisely "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," but not exactly made up out of whole cloth as Professor Althouse seems to suggest. Just sayin'

< The Aiken Solution | HuffPo to Take On Police Stings in Bathrooms >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Life, Liberty . . . | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Strick on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:40:37 PM EST
    Since 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is one of the most famous lines in the Declaration of Independence, it's a heck of a lot more likely a mistake in citation than a paraphrasing of an amendment to the Constitution.  But, of course, you knew that.

    Nothing critical, but something you'd think a reasonably careful paper would get straight.  And the comment's funny.  

    (BTW, I could be wrong, but it seems this is the second time they've done something like this in the past few weeks.  May need to work on this one.)

    Nit picking (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:59:20 PM EST
    opens the nitpicker to same.

    Professor Althouse made a substantive error once in an Op Ed piece for the Times on the Minnesota Twins ands Roe and was quite pissy about being called on it.

    Her living constitution crack makes not so innocent on her part.

    Indeed, it allows for pointing out the fact the Constitution does discuss life and liberty.

    Parent

    Sorry Big Tent (none / 0) (#10)
    by Strick on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:09:04 AM EST
    They made a common mistake and you're making a heck of a stretch to cover for them.  It's not that big a deal.

    Think about it.  Most of us got to memorize the the parts of the Declaration and the Constitution at about the same time in our education.  Easy to get them confused.

    On the other hand, do you know anyone who memorized the 14th Amendment in school?


    Parent

    I don't know anyone (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by aj12754 on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:01:07 AM EST
    who memorized the Constitution in school. Even law school.  I'm just sayin'...

    Parent
    Memorized the Declaratrion? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:24:40 AM EST
    or the Constitution?

    Pulllleaze.

    Parent

    Nice Try (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:47:14 PM EST
    As the first commenter notes, that phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, not from the Constitution.

    Boy, those "layers of editors" sure are helping big media...

    Not the point (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:57:08 PM EST
    Also in theConstitution.

    It is a weak gotcha.

    Indeed, one could argue that Professor Althouse was ignorant of that fact if one wanted to play her game.

    Her Living Constitutions crack is easy to lampoon.

    I think it is all pretty freaking silly and given the errors she made in her Times Op Ed pieces pretty not smart on her part.

    Parent

    They are both in the archives in close (none / 0) (#3)
    by JSN on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:47:59 PM EST
    proximity maybe someone should check.

    'nor shall any state deprive ... without (none / 0) (#6)
    by seabos84 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:11:48 PM EST
    due process of law; nor deny ... equal protection..."

    um. I've just been struck with how powerful those concepts are and how much I've completely forgotten they exist.

    -- aside
    I dropped outta my poli sci degree in 1980 for a lot of reasons, 1 being that I felt that one could basically 'prove' anything with enough creative reading and writing, AND, since I knew a LOT of people with poli sci degrees who were cooks and carpenters, AND, since I was going to have a mountain of debt and NO hard skills for a merciless job market ... who would gave a crap if I could prove that freedom was slavery or that 2 + 2 = 5, since I despised the fascists and those were the people most likely to pay for that skill.
    I cooked for 15 years, I got a math degree with money saved from risking my butt in alaska for 2 of those 15 on fishing boats, then I worked for the koolaid drinking slimeballs at microsoft for 5 years.
    -- end aside.

    those are some serious ideals.  

    I want to give the powerful heartburn and jail sentences cuz I don't think many of them are worthy of more money or power than any of the rest of us peeee-ons. that is just practical social theory / economics, to me - those who get more rewards should have more responsibility and more accountability. If they don't, then we might as well bring back plantations, lords and manors, serfdom, squalor for all the rich, government by the powerful, for the powerful, of the powerful.

    that ain't too idealistic, it is just practical.

    but, ya know what ... ?even for a poli sci hating ex cook / math teacher,

    that 14th Amendment stuff is blatantly obviously idealistic and practical

    there is more to fight for there than just putting powerful scum in jail cuz they're scum.

    rmm.

    So sad. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:17:03 PM EST
    It is extremely common for people to incorrectly place the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Constitution.

    The Framers were certainly familiar with the phrase when they were drafting the Fifth Amendment (I'm still not sure why you ignore it in favor of blathering about the Fourteenth, BTD). Instead they went with Adam Smith's "life, liberty, and property" probably realizing that government would have a hard time protecting the "pursuit of happiness."

    So, yeah, sloppiness on the part of the NY Times Editorial Board. Boy, I never saw that coming. But it's not that big a deal. Only about half of college freshman make the same mistake.

    Yes (none / 0) (#11)
    by Strick on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:11:03 AM EST
    But who knew the NYTimes was hiring C students to write for it? ;)

    Parent
    Who knew that Althouse was (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:22:40 AM EST
    when she made a worse mistake in her Op Ed?

    See how silly this all becomes?

    Parent

    I ignore it (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:21:31 AM EST
    bec ause I think the whole post was pretty cheap shotty of Prof. Althouse.

    Parent
    IIRC (none / 0) (#8)
    by kovie on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:45:32 AM EST
    Some of the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence did in fact include the phrase "life, liberty, and property", but the last part was changed to "the pursuit of happiness" in the final Version, which reverted to the original wording in the constitution. So I think that BTD's essential point is still on the mark, and Althouse needs to spend more time on Wikipedia or with David McCullough.

    Footnote (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by LarryE on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:43:53 AM EST
    Some of the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence

    You're right about those earlier drafts, but it wasn't so much that the Constitution reverted to the original wording as the context was different.

    The Constitution says that no one will be deprived of their property without due process of law. Those drafts of the Declaration of Independence would have declared an "unalienable" right to property - something that was a little too radical for our "Founding Fathers."

    Parent

    Property is happiness? (none / 0) (#16)
    by roy on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:55:48 AM EST
    On behalf of the libertarians of the world, I salute you.

    You would be saluting (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:32:58 PM EST
    the wrong person.

    My point was, as you well know, something different.

    Parent

    Honestly (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    Know. Evern now, I have to look up the exact words of the 14th Amendment.

    Life, Liberty . . . | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment