Hacker News Reader

Comment by presidentender | Hacker News Reader

Hamilton argued that the very existence of the bill of rights invited the expansion of government into all those areas not expressly forbidden therein, but one might question Hamilton's motivations.

That Washington 'quote' cannot be found before 1902. I agree with the sentiment, but false attribution does nothing to help our credibility.

View on HN

Sorry if it's an apocryphal quote.

I see what's happening in the UK, where people are prosecuted for speech and there is no limit to parliament's power (other than watered-down EU treaties and such) and I'm glad we have the first amendment, which prevents prior restraints and criminalizing unpopular speech.

> I'm glad we have the first amendment, which prevents prior restraints and criminalizing unpopular speech

Then why is it that the US ranks lower than the UK on the Press Freedom Index? How exactly has allowing the most vile and offensive hate speech protected you or improved your nation?

Because back in the 1960's, someone speaking out about giving black people equal rights could have been called "vile" and "offensive." That which the majority considers "hate speech" one day might be considered good the next.

Long story short: if you stifle the speech of anyone - say, if they're objecting to an overzealous monarch who demands taxation without representation, OR objecting to puritanical standards that don't allow for interracial marriage - progress will not happen.

> That Washington 'quote' cannot be found before 1902. I agree with the sentiment, but false attribution does nothing to help our credibility.

Amusingly, in checking this out myself, I found this:

"If they have real grievances redress them, if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it at the moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once."

I kind of doubted that the guy who sicced the army on the Whiskey Rebellion would find the government dangerous and fearful.

And Hamilton's argument was (partially) countered by the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Unfortunately, that hasn't worked out so well, has it?

It seems that you agree with Scalia and Stevens [1], who also ignore the 10th Amendment of the bill of rights [2].

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html (control-F "Tenth Amendment")

[2] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com