U.S. Constitution Being Sold With A Disclaimer

[spike]

Publisher Provides Disclaimer With U.S. Constitution, Will Media Notice?
By Kyle Drennen Wed, 06/09/2010 - 16:54 ET

Copies of the U.S. Constitution put out by Wilder Publishing and being sold on Amazon.com come with an odd disclaimer on the first page of the pamphlet, in part declaring: "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today."
On Wednesday's America Live on FNC, host Megyn Kelly reported the controversy, will the rest of the media follow?

In an example of political correctness run amok, the disclaimer goes on to warn parents of the literary material to follow: "Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

The provocative pamphlet also includes the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

On FNC, correspondent Trace Gallagher quoted the publishing company's response to the controversy: "We specialize in classic books and we were receiving complaints about the values depicted in some of the books.

We wrote the disclaimer so that we could stop having to point out to our readers that people held different values 100 or 200 years ago.
It seems we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't."

Kelly concluded: "You know, it's one thing when you republish 'Lady Chatterley's Lover,' it's another when you slap that thing on the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence." Gallagher mocked: "Warning Children."

They showed this in the Glenn Beck show on fox a few days ago and I was totally just floored by the fact that out founding papers now have a disclaimer on them. That is just not right.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[DaveH]

There must be something going around.

check out:

Non Sequitur Comic Strip, June 10, 2010 on GoComics.com

[zacii]

Sad, that society has degenerated to this.

People need to be careful in apologizing for the Constitution. Else 2A becomes as barbaric as slavery...

[azchevy]

The left hates America and what it stands for, but wants to reap the benefits of taxpayer handouts and capitalism. Go figure.

[Hopyard]

The left hates America and what it stands for, but wants to reap the benefits of taxpayer handouts and capitalism. Go figure.

Uh, another good thread that might go down the tubes by getting turned into political discussion. As if large corporations don't get handouts; as if the people who pay the taxes shouldn't get some of that back. WE (the nation as a whole) can argue these things forever. Let's leave the political discussions and name calling where they belong, in Congress and other places besides here.

Does anyone know if there is content in the work being discussed here other than the three documents mentioned in the title? Might the disclaimer pertain to additional included material and not specifically to our Constitution? I haven't had a chance to check, but it sort of seems that there isn't any money to be made republishing documents readily found on the web, and for which no copyright can be obtained--even if the publisher puts a copyright symbol on their compilation. Haven't checked the work out and don't intend to, but I am starting to wonder if there is explanatory material and opinion included in this book which might explain inclusion of the "disclaimer."

[Hopyard]

Does anyone have a url to the INDEX page of this book? I can't find the book at the Wilder web site. Haven't searched Amazon or B&N, but what I want to know is what contents are in there (if any) in addition to the reprinting of the documents mentioned in the title.

I want to know if there is explanatory material or opinion material included or other literature included in the book which might help explain the presence of the disclaimer.

[azchevy]

Uh, another good thread that might go down the tubes by getting turned into political discussion. As if large corporations don't get handouts; as if the people who pay the taxes shouldn't get some of that back. WE (the nation as a whole) can argue these things forever. Let's leave the political discussions and name calling where they belong, in Congress and other places besides here.

Does anyone know if there is content in the work being discussed here other than the three documents mentioned in the title? Might the disclaimer pertain to additional included material and not specifically to our Constitution? I haven't had a chance to check, but it sort of seems that there isn't any money to be made republishing documents readily found on the web, and for which no copyright can be obtained--even if the publisher puts a copyright symbol on their compilation. Haven't checked the work out and don't intend to, but I am starting to wonder if there is explanatory material and opinion included in this book which might explain inclusion of the "disclaimer."

Why do you always try to start fights sir? You are very combative. I am sorry you do not like my opinion.

[Rob P.]

Why do you always try to start fights sir? You are very combative. I am sorry you do not like my opinion.

The problem is that this is a GUN forum not a political forum. So, if you persist in touting your political opinion that might get this thread locked.

[azchevy]

Yet that is a political post, on a very political topic. Has everyone gone mad lately?

I apologize for offending the left wing representatives on this board and will refrain from bashing liberals as I understand they too can own guns even though their views typically lean towards gun control and violation of the USCON.

[Raspy]

The left hates America and what it stands for, but wants to reap the benefits of taxpayer handouts and capitalism. Go figure.

This kind of over the top rude generalization makes it hard to carry on a civil conversation.

I'm definately not part of the right wing. I am a very self sufficient ex military, gun owning American voter. An NRA member. And I can most clearly assure you I don't "hate" America.

If you want to make a comment about the anti gun crowd, you'd be MUCH more affective if you used the words anti gun. When refering to your fellow Americans you might consider not telling them first off that they "hate" America and what it stands for. Next, really take look at where the major taxpayer handouts recently went.

I'm afraid, sir, that you may not understand your fellow countrymen or the political system we live with and cherish.

[Thanis]

Conversely, I have no problem with the disclaimer.

When the Constitution was written, women didn't have many rights. Nor did blacks, indians, hispanics, asians, etc.

So, some of the clauses in the Constitution reflect the times of when they were written. Times that were different than today. Thus, the disclaimer saying just that.

Can't say I have no problem with the disclaimer, but after a few moments, it is less controversial then it appears, and looking through the posts, Rob did a good job with the point of view.

I'm not where Rob is, as there is a good chance there is an agenda at play, even if there is valid logic behind it. Just because something is factual or accuratedoes not mean it is honest.

...I want to know if there is explanatory material or opinion material included or other literature included in the book which might help explain the presence of the disclaimer.

Valid point.

[tangoseal]

Bah Humbug... that constitution has been amended to allow rights for those who did not have it.

It is not a living breathing document that needs disclaimers. It needs to be respected above all else on planet earth. If you cant show respect for the constitution then please show respect for the soldiers that have selflessly given life for that document to remain intact so people can maintain the freedom to write disclaimers no matter how disrespectful.

I knew it was a matter of time before some liberal agreed with the disclaimer.