I was reading the Jessie Jackson quote found on our syllabus for this week and I was struck by what he described as constitutional rights. In international human rights law and theory, there is an idea (created by Czech official Karel Vasak in the 1970's) that human rights can be divided up into three generations. The first generation is concerned with civil and political rights (freedom of speech, religion, due process, etc.). The second generation is focused on equality and items such as right to employment, health care, a living wage, etc. Third generation rights are focused on group rights and such as rights to self determination, cultural heritage, natural resources, sustainability, a healthy environment. It seemed to me that Jackson was saying how the constitution protected those second generation rights. Which, reading over it, I do not agree with. It appears that the rights protected in the constitution solely are comprised of "first generation" rights.
It is also significant that Jackson refers to the declaration of independence instead of the constitution due to its more idealistic nature and its seperate influence on American politics (as we have talked about in class). I would be interested to see what other people think about this. Do you agree with Jackson that those rights are protected by the constitution and/or the Declaration. Is the idea of different generations of rights useful or correct?
1 comment:
This is interesting Joe, because I'm just reading the Ellis/Nelson readings on amendment process reform; Disregarding the arguments for and against it in the readings, I think the very existence of a constitutional amendment system makes it so that the Constitution is, indeed, a "living document". See how it started off firstly protecting "first generation" laws, then it started progressing into "second generation laws"; we now have minimum wage laws and a serious amendment proposal for a clean, sustainable environment is developing. I personally think that the Constitution, at the moment may not specifically defend more than "first generation rights", but allows for it to develop and adjust to the changing times, to cover the second and third generation rights if the American people view them to be under the umbrella of the initial "inalienable rights". On the side, judicial activism really helps in this too.
Post a Comment