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is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.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.
Fox News – June 9, 2010:
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
So, regarding these alleged upset people: what are they upset about?
My favority: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Define Happiness: A–as used today
B–as used in the Dec.
Bet ya can’t do it.
I love this formula. Obscure group says something unconventional about cultural cornerstone. Far- group gets angry. MSM tells us. We’re supposed to care.
The warning label should read: Terrorist Propaganda. Possession of this document will result in your arrest and detainment.
That’s what we teach current CAPOST students at the academy these days.
#1, It was always supposed to be life liberty and the pursuit of property that the philosopher John Locke created. Ben Franklin warned Thomas Jefferson that it gave to much power to the slave owning states and so property was never protected by the constitution, a major flaw. Franklin then put forth the idea of changing property to happiness sort of an inside joke that property and happiness are the same thing. Here’s the Philosophy of Liberty if anyone is interested http://youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
I assume we’re going to put the same warning on both Old and New Testaments as well as the Quran, right?
“All men are created equal.”
Define men: A. As used today.
B. As used in the Decl.
The constitution and it’s amendments are THE SUPREME LAW of the land, there is no higher law. There SHOULD NOT be a disclaimer, EVER. The constitution has certainly been ignored and abused by all three branches of the federal government, this is undeniable. However the constitution has NOT been repealed, therefore a disclaimer implying that it is no longer relevant is absurd.
Our republic (unfortunately) Is no longer a republic of laws, it’s a democracy of men.
Bobbo, your “challenge” is silly and pointless, pursuit of happiness is subjective and will vary based on the INDIVIDUAL. Notice that it doesn’t guarantee happiness, only that you are able to pursue it. Also it’s the declaration of independence, not the constitution, no need to define anything as it isn’t the law of the land. The declaration of independence is just that, a declaration of independence.
That spinning sound you hear is the founding fathers in their graves. They’d weep at what has been done to their creation by those who pretend to be their standard bearers. Yes this means you, DU trolls.
+1 for the Raven Riley pic
#7–DA==I’ll put you down for: “Can’t Do it, Can’t even try to do it.”
Yes, both definitions are subjective, but subjective about two very different things.
Language changes over time.
I wonder if the real concern is any group advising parents to talk to their children. Isn’t that the job of tv?
wait the feds follow the constitution?
i coulda swore there job was to screw over as many people as fast as possible ,as often as possible.
either that or i entered the twilight zone where
Habeus corpus was actually followed and people in power don’t get away with shit.
Speaking of the flag and tv educating too many:
Is it legal or not to burn the US flag?
Hint: yes and no.
It is illegal to burn the flag and the only legal way to dispose of one.
Just because this get repeated every time I hear it on TV: if you own the flag, you can do whatever you want to with it. If the flag belongs to anyone else including the State or Fed Government, then like any other private property, you can be sued/jailed for theft, destruction etc. There might be some other Federal crimes regarding Federally owned flags but bottom line: flag is nothing special other than being private property.
Thats why the model above can disrespect the flag by wrapping her body with it, flag bikinis and so forth.
All freedom loving people should know and support this.
FREEDOM: Other people doing things you don’t like.
Thanks Deowll, I know that was hard for you to do. (Talk to me that is.)
ya what #10 said.
you ever read a book called catch22?
Catch-22, Best book I have ever read. We had a short thread on that a few days ago.
“All men are created equal”
Thomas Jefferson, slaveowner, hypocrite
I suppose that black people are worth 3/5th of a person for the census is a product of its time.
#10–Bobbo,
“i’ll put you down for: “Can’t Do it, Can’t even try to do it.””
Please do, it’s the only good answer. I’m not going to pretend to know what happiness means to anyone.
Yes, both definitions are subjective, but subjective about two very different things.
“Language changes over time.”
I suspect you’ve heard of something called original intent.
If the meaning of law is subject to changes in the language to which it was written then it’s pointless to have any laws. We should just skip that annoying “interpreting” step and just elect a wise overlord by majority vote.
“I wonder if the real concern is any group advising parents to talk to their children. Isn’t that the job of tv?”
Don’t be silly.
@pete #18
“I suppose that black people are worth 3/5th of a person for the census is a product of its time.”
You’re being ridiculous. That part of the constitution has been amended and those amendments are included in the publications with the disclaimer.
In any case, I really don’t give a rats ass what the publisher wants to put in their books. If they wanted to include finger paintings their children made depicting white people whipping black people in their publication of the constitution, let them. The company is suffering backlash from their absurd decision.
#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?