Dear Mr. Jefferson,

You’re probably wondering what strange script and odd-looking paper this is. It would take too long to explain the details, but this letter is from the future. It is the year 2003, and we have discovered a method of sending correspondence back through time. This letter was created on a device that allows us to avoid the painstaking labor of using quill and ink and printing by hand. We’ve also changed our lettering; we no longer use “f”‘s in the place of some of the “s”‘s (we find your old writings somewhat hard-to-read because of that odd lettering.) Also, this letter is not printed on the hemp paper you’re used to, as hemp plants are now illegal. We know that’s hard for you to believe, but we don’t have the time to explain that, either.

Anyway, we wanted to thank you for helping to found our great country, and congratulate you on the fine work you produced with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Just a couple of words about that, however. That 3/5’s Compromise isn’t going to work out so well in about seventy years. And you might want to be a little more clear about the whole impeachment idea. Oh, and the part that says only Congress has the power to declare war — perhaps you should underline that.

Our scientists discovered this method of sending time-travel letters, and the method only provides us with small windows of opportunity. As luck would have it, we found we could send you this one letter as you prepare to ink a few amendments to the Constitution – something we eventually refer to as The Bill of Rights. We have a few questions and suggestions about this seminal document, perhaps you can address these issues as you write the final draft.

We’ve had many arguments about your First Amendment. It probably seems pretty clear to you, but it’s led to major problems for us. For example, the part where you say “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” seems pretty simple. But in our time, it means that merchants can freely interrupt the sanctity of our homes with their sales pitches using a device we call a telephone. It means that the very rich can give limitless money (our courts have decided that spending money is equivalent to exercising speech) to their political candidates, to the point where one party in our two-party system has far more resources than the other, and no other parties have a chance to even compete. Some people are even arguing that, thanks to the First Amendment, women are allowed to take off their clothes and rub their bodies against men for money.

And the other part of that amendment, the religion part — that one is really causing a lot of arguments. We’ve interpreted that you meant there to be a separation between church and state. Yet in some instances, we can make governmental recognition of God, on our money, in Congressional benedictions, for example, but not in other areas, like schools. So, could you be a bit more clear about it?

Another amendment that causes a lot of argument is the Second. We can see how you wanted to have an able citizenry ready to take arms against an aggressor. But now there are 300 million of us (really! Oh, and by the way, Napoleon is going to offer you a great land deal in a few years — take it!) and we have muskets now that can fire hundreds of balls per minute, pierce steel, and be hidden under an overcoat. Through the misunderstanding of your references to “well-regulated militia”, now almost anyone can secure a weapon with the power to devastate neighborhoods. Maybe you should flesh out the “well-regulated” part.

The Third Amendment hasn’t caused any arguments, nor the Fifth or Seventh or Ninth. Good work.

The Fourth Amendment, you might think, seems pretty clear. But we live in an age where employers and governments routinely seize the urine of the citizens. Yes, you read that correctly, and it would be very hard to explain why they want our urine (it has a lot to do with those illegal hemp plants). So, is our urine something that should require a warrant?

Also, we are engaged against an enemy that can hide amongst us, and our president (appointed by the Supreme Court following a voting scandal in what you know as Spanish Florida… You might think about setting up some national voting regulations) ushered in a law that grants government the power to ignore your Fourth and Sixth Amendment if it just thinks a citizen may be one of these enemy combatants.

Speaking of the Sixth, what’s your opinion on a “speedy and public trial”? You might want to set an exact time limit on that. And regarding “public”, we now have the technology to allow people to view a trial from hundreds, even thousands, of miles away (we call it “television”). So does the public have to be physically sitting in the courtroom, or does it just mean the public should have the right to view the trial?

Regarding the Eighth, would you consider death to be a cruel and unusual punishment? This could solve a lot of arguments. And if death is a reasonable punishment, is it reasonable to put children, or those with the mentality of a child, to death for a capital crime?

Finally, regarding the Tenth, you might want to spend a lot of time fleshing out what powers are reserved for the States. Our government is currently ignoring the will of voters in nine states regarding the use of hemp plants to treat illnesses (again, because the government has declared hemp plants illegal). In other areas, like setting the proper age at which citizens may consume alcoholic beverages, the government uses extortion tactics to force the states to do its bidding.

Thank you, Mr. Jefferson, for your time. I hope these suggestions can help you craft a better set of amendments, leading to less confusion now in your future.

Russ Belville

American Citizen (from a state bordering the Pacific Ocean — I told you that Napoleon Land Deal was a good one! — you should send some explorers out here in a few years.)

P.S. — We know about your affair with your slave. It’s no sort of scandal now to acknowledge relations with an African-American (we don’t call them Negroes anymore, and they are full citizens, and don’t think for a second that the southern states let that happen without a fight!) But I’m warning you that your descendents of Sally Hemmings are going to have a few disagreements with your other descendants.

    ____________________________________________________________________

   |                                                                    

_  | "RADICAL" RUSS BELVILLE | Read More at http://radicalruss.net/blog/  

  | Portland, Oregon U.S.A. | Permission is granted for reprint of this      

  | © 2003 by Russ Belville | post, as long as this footer is included.