[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2099-H2102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I recently have given several 
Special Order speeches about my view of the Constitution and making my 
argument for why I think it should be amended to include certain basic 
rights that the American people currently lack, such as the right to a 
high-quality education, the right to health care, and equal rights for 
women.

                              {time}  1930

  I believe these rights should be given to the American people as a 
matter of moral and social justice. However, even more than that, I 
believe that there's a strong economic case for why these rights should 
be granted by this Congress. If we guarantee the right to an education 
of equal high quality to every American, and give the Congress the 
power to implement that right by appropriate legislation, then, Mr. 
Speaker, we will set off a true race to the top as States, cities, and 
the Federal Government are compelled to meet under the standard.
  The nature of the problem: in 50 States there are 95,000 schools. 
There are 15,000 school districts; 3,141 counties; 19,000 municipal 
governments, and 30,000 incorporated cities. In all of that government 
there are 60 million children who are being asked to be the very best 
that they can be.
  With my amendment, that means more teachers and teachers' aides and 
tutors for our kids. It means the construction companies and roofers 
and architects will be engaged to build new schools and improve old 
ones. It means technology companies benefit as computers and laptops 
are purchased; and, yes, iPads, Kindles, and Nooks replace textbooks.
  I realize that there will be a cost to all of this, but I believe 
that if we can find the resources for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
military action in Libya, then we can find the resources to educate our 
children and the American people. Most importantly, for 308 million 
Americans, we can't afford not to.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I want to put my proposal tonight in some 
historical context, if I can. I want to suggest that through the course 
of human history, law is actually going somewhere. I want to suggest 
that at points in time from the earliest civilizations, progress has 
been made incrementally towards freedom, towards justice, and towards 
human rights.
  I want to put our own Constitution and the Bill of Rights into the 
context at vital points in time. These documents are not the end all 
and the be all of democracy and freedom. No, Mr. Speaker. The very 
ability to amend our Constitution suggests that the Founders of our 
country see things the way I do--that the document they crafted was a 
landmark in human history, but not a perfect, final draft.
  So, tonight, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a walk through history 
to talk a little bit about where law and human rights have been, where 
they are, and where they're going. A couple of themes are going to 
emerge that as history shows that law is heading in a certain 
direction, we're going to see an action by a majority in this Congress 
heading in the opposite direction of human law through human history.
  Like all civilizations, the roots of democracy and human rights lie 
in what is known as the Middle East--the Mesopotamian Empire. Although 
those early civilizations were decidedly not democratic and not 
inclusive of human rights, the evolution of law as we know it started 
there. Around 2350 B.C., Before Christ, Mesopotamia was ruled by 
Urukagina's Code, the oldest known set of laws. They are referenced in 
documents from the period as the consolidation of ``ordinances'' that 
claimed that kings were appointed by the gods, and affirmed the rights 
of citizens to know why certain actions were being punished.
  Some 300 years later, around 2050 B.C., Ur-Nammu's Code was the 
earliest known written law. Only a handful of articles can be 
deciphered, but evidence suggests an advanced legal system with 
specialized judges, testimony under oath, and the ability for judges to 
assess damages to be paid to victims by the guilty party.
  In 1850 B.C., we saw the first known legal decision involving murder 
of a temple employee by three other men. Nine witnesses testified 
against them, and three were sentenced to death. In 1700 B.C., 
Hammurabi's Code was carved into rock columns in Babylon. The 
underlying principle was ``an eye for an eye.'' Some 282 clauses 
regulated an array of obligations, professions, and rights, including 
commerce, slavery, marriage, theft, and debts. Punishment by modern 
standards was barbaric, including cutting off hands or fingers as a 
punishment for theft.
  In 1300 B.C., the Jewish Torah and the Christian Old Testament say 
that the Ten Commandments were received by Moses directly from God. 
Contained in the book of Exodus, those Commandments became the basis of 
modern laws against murder, adultery, and stealing. Around 1280 B.C., 
in India, rules passed down orally through generations were formally 
written down as the Laws of Manu. They were the basis of India's caste 
system, and punishment was used sparingly and only as a last resort. 
Interestingly, members of the higher castes were punished more severely 
than those in the lower castes.
  In 621 B.C., Draco's Law was written for the Athenians. The 
punishment was so severe--often death--that we derived the word 
``Draconian'' from it. However, Draco's Law introduced the concept that 
the state, not private parties or vigilantes, had the exclusive role in 
trying and punishing a person for a crime. Shortly after Draco's Law, 
the Spartan King Lycurgus give his oral law to the world. Lycurgus' Law 
held that women had a duty to have children. But if the children were 
deformed, they would be killed. Those who lived became wards of Sparta 
at age 7 when they began preparation for military duty.

  In 550 B.C., Solon, an Athenian statesman and lawmaker, redefined and 
refined Draco's Law by ``democratizing'' it, making it more accessible 
to the citizens of Athens. Around the same time, in 536 B.C., China 
created the Book of Punishments, which limited the ways in which 
somebody could be punished after being convicted of a very serious 
crime, but still allowed for tattooing, manipulation, the amputation of 
feet, and death as legal punishments.
  In 450 B.C., the Twelve Tables in Rome were created. These formed the 
basis of all modern law. Under these laws, a system of public justice 
was developed whereby injured parties could seek compensation from 
guilty defendants. The lower classes--the plebes--were given greater 
protection from abuses by the ruling classes--the patricians--
especially with regard to debts. The Twelve Tables also prohibited 
marriages between classes, severely punished death, and gave fathers 
the right of life or death over their sons. The Tables survived for 
nearly a thousand years until they were destroyed by the invading Gauls 
in 390 A.D.
  One hundred years later, in 350 B.C., the first Chinese Imperial Code 
of Law, the Code of Li k'vei, dealt with the issues of theft, robbery, 
arrest, and other general subjects. It served as a model for the 
Chinese T'ang Code, which came about a thousand years later. In 339 
B.C., the trial of Socrates played a role in the development of law. 
Accused of corrupting the minds of youth with his logic and of not 
believing in the gods, Socrates was a scapegoat for the loss of the 
Peloponnesian Wars. He was sentenced to death by a vote of 361-140, but 
his trial advanced the idea of the role of ``conscience'' in legal 
proceedings. Socrates was afforded the opportunity to speak to the jury 
and engage them in a dialogue. And, instead, he chose to give the jury 
a speech, criticizing them for their lack of sensitivity.
  While it may not be contemplated as part of the traditional legal 
history, the life of Jesus Christ informs my personal understanding of 
the law. Under Jesus' law, pure motives, a mature love and grace 
unmerited, as well as nominal justice, good behavior, and honorable 
ends became important. Jesus was not replacing Moses' Law, but was seen 
as fulfilling and perfecting it. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus says, 
``Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I 
have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to 
you, until heaven and

[[Page H2100]]

Earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law until 
all is accomplished.''
  In Galatians, Paul writes, ``For the whole law of Moses is fulfilled 
in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'' In Romans he 
writes, ``Love is fulfilling the law.'' Thus, this Judeo-Christian 
understanding of the law is both a commitment to justice and the 
application of a knowledgeable understanding of love is important to 
the spiritual framework that underlies and undergirds much of my 
understanding and this Nation's philosophy towards the law as well as 
the purpose and the function of the law in society.
  All law after the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ is 
profoundly impacted. We make a transition from Before Christ to Anno 
Domini. Jumping ahead to 529 Anno Domini, Justinian's Code organized 
Roman Law into a series of books called ``Corpus Juris Civilis.'' This 
legal collection was guided by Greek and English common law, the two 
main influences on contemporary Western jurisprudence. Many legal 
principles in use today, including the very spelling of the modern word 
``justice,'' emanate from Justinian, the Emperor of the Byzantium.

                              {time}  1940

  The 17-article Constitution of Japan, written in 604 A.D., shaped 
that country's morality and law. Paternalistic in orientation, it 
espoused such legalisms as ``peace and harmony,'' that they ``should be 
respected because they are very important for intergroup relations'' 
and ``equality, speediness, and integrity should be maintained in court 
procedures.''
  One distinction that characterizes two different legal traditions is 
that much of traditional Asian law seeks to prevent disputes; whereas 
Western law seeks to resolve disputes. It is very important, Mr. 
Speaker. A distinction between Asian law is that it seeks to prevent 
disputes; whereas Western law seeks to resolve disputes.
  In 653 A.D., the kingdoms that make up modern-day China were 
consolidated, and the T'ang Code, revising earlier existing Chinese 
laws and standardized procedures, was created. It listed crimes and 
their punishments in 501 articles. One of those allowed just two forms 
of capital punishment for a convicted criminal: beheading or hanging.
  Shortly thereafter, in 700 A.D., China invented the use of 
fingerprinting as a means of identifying people.
  In 1100 A.D., the first law school came into existence.
  The basis of English common law in 1215 A.D., the Magna Carta, was 
signed by King John. It forced the King, for the first time, to concede 
a number of rights to the barons and to the people. Its 61 clauses 
included freedom of the church; fair taxation; controls over 
imprisonment, habeas corpus; and the right of all merchants to come and 
go freely except in time of war. Its most important clause was No. 39, 
stating that no freeman shall be captured or imprisoned except by the 
judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Now even the King was 
restrained from merely exercising his will against another person.
  In 1689, the English Bill of Rights was enacted, the precursor of our 
American Bill of Rights. It prohibited the arbitrary suspension of 
Parliament's laws, and more importantly, limited Parliament to the 
right to raise money through taxation.
  In 1692, the Salem witch trials captivated Salem, Massachusetts. The 
fervor resulted in more than 300 accusations of witchcraft, with 23 
executions as a result. It thrust the justice system into the popular 
mind in a way never seen before.
  In 1740, the infamous South Carolina Slave Code, which regulated the 
use of slaves, became the model for slavery in other States. It said: 
``All Negroes, Indians . . . and their offspring . . . shall be and are 
hereby declared to be and remain forever hereafter slaves; and shall be 
deemed . . . to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners.''
  Then in 1765, law became more accessible to the common man when a 
British barrister named Blackstone wrote down the entire English law 
system in an easy-to-read, four-volume ``Blackstone's Commentaries on 
the Laws of England.'' Blackstone's work was easily exported to the new 
British colonies and was the basis for the governments there according 
to many legal scholars.
  In 1772, the Somersett case captured the world's attention. James 
Somersett, a slave in Massachusetts, escaped from his master while on a 
trip abroad in England. He was recaptured and imprisoned, to be sent to 
Jamaica, then a British colony; but three English citizens claimed to 
be his godparents. Three white citizens claimed to be the godparents of 
an African American slave, and they filed a suit, alleging that slavery 
was not legal under British law. They won their case. Somersett was 
freed, and slavery was finished in Great Britain.
  The reaction in the colonies was profound. Partly in response to the 
Somersett case, the colonies in America revolted. In 1776, the 
Declaration of Independence by the American colonists from Great 
Britain created a new day for human rights. It asserted ``all men are 
created equal'' and have ``certain inalienable rights and that among 
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure 
these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their 
powers from the consent of the governed.'' But we know that the writers 
of the Declaration did not intend those words to apply to all men and 
certainly not to women or to the American slave.
  The Constitution of the United States of America was signed in 
Philadelphia on September 17, 1787, and was ratified by nine States on 
June 21, 1788. It formed the legal basis for the first republican form 
of government in the history of the world. It defined the institutions 
of government and the powers of the executive, the judicial, and 
legislative branches. Its shortcomings with respect to slavery, along 
with the power struggles between the Federal Government and the States, 
are well documented. Nevertheless, the Constitution and its inherent 
ability to be amended have been the model for many other nations in 
attaining their independence, and represent one of the most important 
steps in the development of law and human rights.

  The American Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the 
Constitution, was approved and ratified in 1791. These 10 amendments, 
in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, declared rights in the areas of 
free speech, free press, free religion, the right to trial by jury, 
protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and unreasonable 
searches and seizures. The Bill of Rights has influenced many modern 
charters and bills of rights around the world, and stands as one of the 
bedrocks of not just our democracy but of human rights history.
  In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court upheld the 
supremacy of the Constitution and stated unequivocally that the Court 
had the power to strike down actions taken by American State and 
Federal bodies that, in its judgment, were unconstitutional. This 
principle of ``judicial review'' represents, in my opinion and in the 
opinion of many legal scholars, the biggest advance in American law 
since the Constitution was ratified. It serves as a model for the 
balance of powers that many other nations have adopted.
  One year after Marbury, France adopted the Napoleonic Code, which 
canonized many of the victories of the French Revolution, including 
individual liberty, equality before the law, and the ``consent of the 
governed'' character of the state. It had great influence beyond 
France, with Quebec, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, California, and 
Louisiana adopting parts of it.
  The Geneva Convention of 1864 set forth basic human rights standards 
during times of war, including protection of military medical personnel 
and humane treatment of the wounded. It was later supplemented by a 
Prisoner of War Convention. Though it has been violated and ignored on 
numerous occasions, the Geneva Convention remains an important legal 
document and a milestone on the march of law and human rights.
  In 1865, following the Civil War, the U.S. Congress passed, and the 
States ratified, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, officially 
ending legal slavery.
  Prior to that, the 10th Amendment was the turning point in the 
Constitution of the United States. Those rights not written in the 
Constitution are in the purview of the States.
  The addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution established a 
new

[[Page H2101]]

paradigm. If slavery, as conservatives and Southerners argued, is a 
State right, then States' rights can never be human rights.
  The Constitution, with the addition of the 13th Amendment, changed 
the present order and the divided time.
  I'm in Congress today, and Barack Obama is President of the United 
States because of the Constitution and its capacity to change time and 
space.
  In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which puts forth a legal code of 
internationally recognized human rights. It serves as a basic guide to 
the fundamental rights of all people.
  Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 
we've seen many, many more landmarks in human rights that have been 
reached. We're even watching the Middle East now seek even greater 
human rights against monarchies and kings and other leaders who are 
despots and not believing in the basic rights of people.
  While we've failed to ensure full equality for all women in this 
country, we are making progress towards pay equality. I believe we need 
to amend the Constitution to ensure that women have fully equal 
standing with men.
  We've enacted hate crimes legislation, and many States have moved 
towards marriage equality for gays and lesbians. We have much more work 
to do on that front.
  And as I began my remarks tonight, I began, Mr. Speaker, by saying 
that we need to amend our Constitution to include certain rights that 
the American people should have but don't. As I just said, we need to 
include equal rights for women; we need to include the right to a 
public education of equal high quality; we need to include health care 
as a right for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, it might surprise some Americans to know, which we 
learned in Bush v. Gore, that we don't even have a fundamental right to 
vote in the U.S. Constitution, only a right to not be discriminated 
against in the States while voting.
  So, from the earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia, through the 
development of Europe, Asia, North America, and the rest of the modern 
world, we have seen greater democracy; we've seen more inclusion; we've 
seen more freedom; we've gone from vigilante justice, to ``an eye for 
an eye,'' to the modern criminal justice system. The death penalty was 
a common response to crime in many of the earliest civilizations, and 
it persists to this day in many places around the world, including here 
in the United States. My home State of Illinois, thanks to Governor Pat 
Quinn, recently banned the death penalty. I personally support that, 
but I know many of my colleagues would not.
  There is an element in this Congress that is heading in the opposite 
direction of human law and human history, but the arc of history 
continues. The development of law and human rights did not stop with 
the writing of our Constitution, and it did not stop with the writing 
of our Bill of Rights.

                              {time}  1950

  The Constitution is not a static, set in stone, take it as it is and 
only as it is document. It, like the overall development of human 
rights and law through time, is organic. It's dynamic. It's living. 
It's forward-looking. It is adaptable to the challenges of a new day 
and a new world.
  In fact, in their infinite wisdom, the Framers of the Constitution 
set up the very mechanism by which the march of justice and human 
rights could continue: an amendment process. It's not an easy one, and 
it's not one that should be taken lightly, but I believe we should, 
indeed, revisit our sacred document and amend it to include fundamental 
freedoms for the American people.
  Thus, human law and political rights have evolved through history to 
ever higher forms and the granting of more rights. This has also meant 
that responsibilities and obligations have moved away from external 
sources and appointed governmental power to the voice of the majority 
of the democratically elected representatives of the people.
  The word ``democracy'' is comprised of two Greek words: demos and 
kratos--people, strength or power--people power. It means we the people 
have the strength and the power in the end to elect people to make our 
laws and rules. We the people have the right to declare what rights we 
have and what rights we don't have, what rules we will live and play 
by, and under which laws we will be governed. A representative 
democratic government is a political structure and arrangement whereby 
the supreme governmental authority is accepted, and the rules are made 
with the consent of a majority of the common people.
  Thus, the contrast between organic, evolutionary, and political 
nature of the law versus the static, strict constructionist, and 
natural view of the law should be clear in terms of the creation and 
preservation of political rights in human development.
  The approach of conservatives to play down or advocate an 
antipolitical, antilegislative, and anti-Federal Government philosophy 
of social change is, therefore, certainly not a strategy designed to 
advance the public interests or real economic interests of the majority 
of the American people. These conservatives and tea party activists who 
will descend upon Washington tomorrow are acting on behalf of the 
special interests of the few who do not want mass democratic 
participation and action. This antigovernment and undemocratic 
conservative approach is a strategy to undermine progressive and 
economic change intended to benefit the public good.
  In a living democracy, we must continually criticize and reform our 
politics, our government and policies to keep them relevant, effective, 
efficient, accessible, accountable, and responsive to real people's 
needs. This is very different, however, from criticizing politics and 
the government, per se, as irrelevant and ineffective as instruments of 
change or protecting old rights as opposed to advancing new ones.
  It is quite clear that the strict constructionist constitutional 
approach of conservatives like Mr. Quayle and Mr. Buchanan, Mr. 
Robertson and Mr. Meese, Mr. Bork and George W. Bush seem to be frozen 
in time, backward-looking and fearful philosophical views of 
government, history, and the Constitution.
  Strict constructionism, Mr. Speaker, runs contrary to the whole legal 
development of rights in human history. Strict constructionists look 
back to the Founders' original document only, before the 13th, 14th, 
and 15th Amendments and other progressive amendments to the 
Constitution were added, before nonlandowners could vote, before 
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Strict constructionists, as former 
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said at an event celebrating 
the 200th anniversary of the writing of the Constitution, ``believe 
that the meaning of the Constitution was 'fixed' at the Philadelphia 
Convention.'' That would require us to know their original intent and 
rigidly preserve the Founding Fathers' philosophy, even though they 
were all men, most were slaveholders, and they allowed slavery in the 
Constitution. A strict constructionist interpretation of the 
Constitution also means a reaffirmation of States' rights as the 
preeminent guiding legal principle.
  A broad interpretation, on the other hand, sees the Constitution as 
forward-looking, as living, as positive, and a hopeful document. We 
respect the past and the positive contribution that the Founders made. 
We seek to understand their intent and the full context in which the 
Constitution was written, and we seek to understand to the fullest its 
original meaning. But we also know that it has been changed and 
improved along the way in order to be more inclusive of all the 
American people. Therefore, we also know that we have an obligation 
today to improve it even further.
  The more people are made aware of their rights to which they are 
entitled, the rights which have already been written in national and 
international law, the more politically educated and conscious people 
become of these rights, the more politically active and organized the 
common people become in the struggle to achieve these rights, and the 
more accessible and responsive our democratic institutions of politics 
and government become to the democratic will of the people, the faster 
and more nonviolently we as a society will be able to achieve a new and 
higher set of human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, since this Congress has begun, I've been coming to this 
floor

[[Page H2102]]

talking about one issue, and that's high unemployment. And in order to 
wipe out unemployment, which we've been recording from 1890 to 2011, we 
need a massive jobs program in this country. I recommend a jobs program 
that benefits all Americans: the rebuilding of 95,000 schools in this 
Nation to an equal high-quality standard; putting roofers, brick 
masons, electricians, teachers, carpenters to work; providing 
unprecedented technological access to the Internet and modern forms of 
communication to 60 million children across our country.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, tea party activists and conservatives in 
both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, many of them don't 
see it that way. But I see something different. I see an America that 
can build runways for airplanes in States all across this country and 
build an interstate transportation system by one national Federal 
standard.
  We simply can't build schools and provide an equal high-quality 
education for 60 million children in 50 different States in 15,000 
locally controlled school districts in 3,100 counties in 19,000 cities 
across this country one school at a time. If there's enough money to 
fight the war in Iraq, if there's enough money which this Congress 
keeps writing the check for to fight the war in Afghanistan, if there's 
enough money to spend $550 million in 1 week bombing Libya, then, Mr. 
Speaker, we can find the money in this Congress to rebuild these 
schools, reduce unemployment, put 15 million unemployed Americans to 
work, and change the course of our country. If we can put 15 million 
Americans to work, we can wipe out the Nation's debt, its deficit, and 
provide a long future for the American people.
  With that said, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________