Constitutional rights vs. needs

Ellettsville, Ind., is in a bit of a constitutional kerfuffle.

The town council is considering passing an ordinance that would require groups to apply for permits before organizing events for more than 250 people.

While this ordinance brings to mind the perils of rights restriction, it also lets us consider the role our Constitution and fundamental rights play in our lives and if that role could be changed.

The reasoning behind this ordinance is safety.

The town council is hoping to mitigate riots, noise violations, out of control parties and other general safety issues.

It’s only meant to keep the town orderly and protected.

Still, a big red flag pops up in everyone’s head when you talk about restricting the First Amendment.

We have a clear right to assemble. It’s one of the first things our forefathers decided was important enough to add to the Constitution.

When people can’t gather together, they have an awfully tough time making their voices heard.

The freedom to assemble is a clear check on the government to ensure it can’t oppress the public.

But how big of an issue is this?

How often are people assembling in Ellettsville to demand that the government stop its tyrannical, oppressive actions and liberate the people from the chains of servitude?

Are citizens fighting daily to maintain their inalienable rights?
Or is this just a small town in the middle of the country worried about parties becoming too loud?

We like to wave the Constitution around when we hear about regulation.
But how many of us know all of our rights and use them on a regular basis?

Name all 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. It gets pretty tough after four or five, doesn’t it?

We love to praise the eminence of our political documents, but the Constitution is 226 years old.

A lot has happened since then.

Isn’t it possible that our current conditions have rendered certain aspects of our political ideology obsolete?

I’m not arguing that we gut the Bill of Rights and get rid of whatever we deem unnecessary.

We have these rights for a reason, and, even as a symbolic gesture they’re important.
They’re there to assure us that the United States was created by the people, for the people.

And when you start taking away rights in the name of efficiency, where does it stop?
However, we should approach our rights with prudence.

We should think about what they mean to us, especially in a shifting environment.
Maybe some are irrelevant now.

Maybe we just need to reconsider and reinterpret some.

Maybe we need some new rights. Technology has changed enough — are we sure everything we have now will cover future issues?

One thing is clear. If we can’t talk about changing the Constitution or parts of our political system at all, we aren’t participating in a free and open debate, which is counter to democracy.

We should at least be open to discussion on change, even if we decide nothing should happen.

Our country was founded on the idea that we could build a nation greater than any before.

That we could come up with a system that benefits everyone.

The idea that we could do better.

Let’s not lose that idea.

sckroll@indiana.edu