Magna Carta Libertatum
The Great Charter of Freedoms

1. FIRST
We have granted to God,
and by this our present Charter have confirmed for US
and our heirs forever,
that the Church of England shall be free.
She shall have all her whole Rights
and Liberties inviolable.

We have granted also,
and given to all the Freemen of our Realm,
for US and our heirs Forever,
these Liberties under-written,
to have and to hold to them
and their heirs of US
and our heirs forever.

29.
No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned,
or be disseised of his Freehold,
or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled,
or any other wise destroyed;
nor will We not pass upon him,
nor condemn him,
but by lawful judgment of his peers,
or by the Law of the Land.

We will sell to no man,
we will not deny or defer to any man
either Justice or Right.


Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum
(We command that you have the body)

We command you, that the body of A.B.
in Our prison under your custody detained,
as it is said,
together with the day
and cause of his taking and detention,

by whatsoever name the said A.B.
may be known therein,
you have at our Court ...
to undergo and to receive that which
our Court shall then and there consider
and order in that behalf.
Hereof in no way fail, at your peril.
And have you then there this writ.

(Magna Carta - signed June 15, 1215 A.D.)


These men who wrote and enforced the Magna Carta were heroic! I see no shame in defending liberty!
Come on fellas "Stand Up!"

Standing up for liberty is very important, and so is the Magna Carta. However, so is sitting down and reading a bit. There is a fairly decent albeit short history of the Magna Carta in the Court's decision, cited in the article, which might be informative.

Dan

Putting aside, for the moment, the arguments of legal and political historical intent and precedent, IMO one must consider the intent and purpose of Habeus, Bill Of Rights and Magna Carta and other prominent proclamations. In fact, one must examine what one wants the law to effect.

For many years I have held that 'foreigners', those who are not 'freemen' or citizens, either by fortune of birth or by struggle for citizenship, are not fully entitled to the protections and privileges of modern Western justice. They were not indoctrinated into our system, they have not voluntarily assumed the responsibilities of our society and are thus not entitled to all the privileges and protections.

But I'm changing my mind, for 2 reasons: (1) we vociferously instruct other governments to embrace our notions of Human Rights, and (2) relaxing our principles with foreigners cannot help but dilute the protections of our own citizens.

If we seriously intend to tell other people how to conduct their business (and the very invasion of Iraq exemplifies that) we must follow those same rules even if it is uncomfortable. Otherwise our arguments are easily defeated by charges of hypocrisy.

If we introduce legal anomalies like torture and hearsay evidence, we can't help but to undermine our own internal legal protections. After all, the people who go back into civilian life after the war will take with them the skills and attitudes they acquired while dealing with foreigners. We can only imagine the bad effect of promoted officers whose expertise is in torture and coercion returning to civil society as judges and prosecutors.

In this situation, one cant be declared an enemy combatant if it is not proven that he is one. Being accused by some guy down the street who got paid to do so, in the comfort of your own country does not make you an enemy combatant.

Most of these guys were kidnapped or sold into imprisonment by greedy neighbors or sometimes relatives (in laws). We were paying extremely poor people several times their annual income, to provide us with enemy combatants. We got them.

They weren't told what they were charged with, who made the charge and where or when they performed the infraction.

Dan, not sure what is confusing about the notion that this is simply wrong AND will eventually bite is in the tush. We simply cant conduct business like that.

I have no legal background. I cannot cite legal precedent. I do understand at least some of the risks involved regarding this decision. BUT! I must agree with bliffle above.

The decisions made by the Bush administration and the military under its mandate regarding the disposition of the detainees at Gitmo and other places, the use of at best very questionable interrogation techniques constitute an egregious hypocracy and a serious embarrassment for this country.

Owing largely to convenience most of the Gitmo and other detainees have been denied essentially any legal rights with no idea of how long they may be detained, under what conditions, and when or if they may be afforded an opportunity to face their accusers before any manner of tribunal.

As bliffle stated, we have via the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and other means forced our selves into other sovereign (if wholly despicable) nations in the supposed task of introducing them to democracy.

Concomitantly, and over the past many years, we have insisted upon humane treatment of our "detainees" via the Geneva Conventions. That we choose to ignore those conventions and/or cherry pick those that work for us and ignore those that present an inconvenience, or yes, even perhaps an added danger, is hypocritical at best.

Judge Scalia, who IMO is perhaps the closest to being an idiot amongst all of the current and past members of the Supreme Court, in his dissenting opinion states that more Americans will die owing to this decision, which is highly inflammatory and the truth of it hardly likely.

If it can be said that we once legitimately wore the white hats of the good guys, kept in place by our supposed righteousness, they now remain precariously atop our enlarged heads via barbed wire and duct tape.

Judge Scalia, who IMO is perhaps the closest to being an idiot amongst all of the current and past members of the Supreme Court, in his dissenting opinion states that more Americans will die owing to this decision, which is highly inflammatory and the truth of it hardly likely.

It's certainly highly inflammatory, as is Scalia's way. I don't know if it's true or not that this decision will cause more Americans to die. But I do know this:

I'm much more wililng to die for a country that affirms Guantanamo detainees' habeas corpus rights, than I am for one that doesn't.

Yeah, we must remember that democracy is a risky business. The government and military can't have it both ways and expect the rest of the world or our own citizens to ignore the inconsistency and hypocracy. We lose all credibility.

B-tone

I am in substantial agreement with the comments above, with one caveat. Biffle says,

Putting aside, for the moment, the arguments of legal and political historical intent and precedent, IMO one must consider the intent and purpose of Habeus, Bill Of Rights and Magna Carta and other prominent proclamations. In fact, one must examine what one wants the law to effect.

Re: the title... Uh George Bush appointed the Chief Justice, any other questions? Duh!

Jet,

Yes, President Bush appointed Mr. Chief Justice Roberts, who dissented from the majority decision. Mr. Justice Kennedy was appointed by President Reagan. The title of the article was directed to Mr. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion.

Dan

Be that as it may, the supreme court is the last stop, and even congress can't override them on this one.

It's comical, but expected. if they agree with the liberal side, they're "legislating from the bench" agree with the right, and they're the most knowledgable people on the face of the earth.

It's true that each of the 3 branches has to apply it's proper function to the law. Congress passes law, Supremes judge consistency with Constitution, and executive carries out the law.

While they each have roughly equal power they have different functions.

But for us ordinary citizens we have to consider all 3 functions in our personal deliberations because we elect the congressmen who pass the laws an we elect the president who appoints justices as necessary. In fact, possible Supremes appointees is a significant part of our considerations for our presidential choices.

While the power of the 3 branches is roughly equal, they serve different purposes: (1) reflecting the will of the electorate, (2) determining consistency with Constitution (and previous law), and (3) executing the law.

The Supremes cannot initiate new law. But they can judge consistency of law. They only have a negative power. For example, when the SCOTUS said that "separate is inherently unequal" they were NOT initiating new law but rather pointing out that the "separate but equal" contrivance was simply a logical inconsistency. It was a failure of legal syllogism. They were NOT saying that it was morally wrong, or that it was unAmerican. they were saying that no logical legal system that abides a contradiction can survive. This is an old and honored principle of logic: any system that can encompass a proposition AND it's contradiction is a system in which nothing can be proven and everything can be proven and is thus gibberish.

Furthermore, there is not even proposed by the congress (acting as proxy for the executive) an alternative section of the Constitution that deals with non-citizens, i.e., foreigners.

Sigh. The burdens of idealism are heavy indeed. But that is what we have embraced in our Constitution, Declaration Of Independence, Bill Of Rights and other re-affirmations.

In fact, we have asserted that international treaties that we sign are as binding as our own laws, not merely suggestions that we may or may not observe.

Thus, if we look back to, say, 1944 when we had some 200,000 German POWs incarcerated (in New Mexico and Arizona, primarily) we felt ourselves bound by Geneva Conventions and rules of war to treat those soldiers to the same living condition as our own soldiers and officers.

Gasp! This was a big sacrifice because USA citizens were undergoing severe rationing to make sure that our Army and Navy lads had the best food and the best support circumstances we could possibly afford. Now we were required to provide those same conditions to The Hated Enemy!

We citizens were undergoing meatless days, milkless meals, etc., while German POWs were eating high on the hog! It was so good for the POWs that only one ever tried to escape (he was easily apprehended wandering around in Alberquerque). There were plenty of well-organized protests by angry USA citizens, too.

We even had to provide movies and other entertainment facilities so that they might not even notice they were prisoners. As well as military-quality medical facilities (much better than civilian facilities in those days).

But we saw our duty and we did it.

Are we less men than the Americans of 64 years ago?

"Are we less men than the Americans of 64 years ago?"

Yup. Much less of a country, too.

For proof, just look around you: at the media, the fashions, the "lifestyles" (a word that didn't even exist 64 years ago), the schools, the prisons, the hospitals, the congress, the executive, the values - pretty much everything.

Sic transit gloria...

If the majority decision was written badly as Dan suggests, that may well bring about unintended problems which is unfortunate. But to accept the status quo would have been worse.

One must remember that if the courts are overstepping their mandate, the same can surely be said of the executive branch as well under GW. And for much of the last 7+ years, the legislative branch has been the puppet of the executive, therefore effectively reducing its prominence in the whole process. Congress has become the weak sister of the 3 branches, while the courts have attempted to fill that void in an effort to clamp down on Bush and company. Is it all right and proper? Is it what the founding fathers intended? It's doubtful.

It just seems to me that if you view the so called "balance of powers as an equilateral triangle with the respective branches situated at each point, presently the executive, and perhaps the judicial points are greatly extended and the legislative point is but a nearly invisible bump on the horizon. One hopes that with the next administration, this divergence from the norm, or from the ideal, will be lessened, returning the image to more equal and "balanced" proportions.

And Zedd makes an excellent point as well. None of us have so much as mentioned the detainees themselves, many of whom may well be absolutely innocent. And even those who are in fact guilty should have a right to a proper hearing and adjudication of their cases.

Again, Dan may be correct. This decision may in fact muddy the waters to such an extent that nothing much will be accomplished for years to come. But, it was obvious that a majority of detainees had little or no hope of ever seeing their plight advanced while their lives wither away in the heat of the Cuban sun. They are, after all, human beings.

B-tone

During the Cold War, we helped the world stand fast against the rise of a country that used torture, arrested even its own citizens and imprisoned them for years without trial or even evidence, and held its highest government officials to be above the law.

That was for most of my military career. Now it's MY government, my AMERICA that does the same.

Read Bush's Executive Order 51, wherein he allows himself to take on dictatorial powers in the case of a national emergency. And then remember Bush's quote: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

It seems that it's now a crime against patriotism to think of any non-U.S. citizen as being deserving of justice in the sight of God. My heart aches for what my country is on the verge of becoming.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's "ALL MEN" - not 'all citizens'.

Can the Founding Fathers have been so wrong?

Jett,

You say,

It's comical, but expected. if they agree with the liberal side, they're "legislating from the bench" agree with the right, and they're the most knowledgable people on the face of the earth.

Biffle and Baritone,

I tried to post comments responsive to yours, but the system apparently was screwed up. I will try again tomorrow. Sorry about that.

Dan

Biffle,

You say,

when the SCOTUS said that "separate is inherently unequal" they were NOT initiating new law but rather pointing out that the "separate but equal" contrivance was simply a logical inconsistency.

Baritone,

Let's see if the system is working.

In your comment, you say,

If the majority decision was written badly as Dan suggests, that may well bring about unintended problems which is unfortunate. But to accept the status quo would have been worse.

Clav,

"For proof, just look around you: at the media, the fashions, the "lifestyles" (a word that didn't even exist 64 years ago), the schools, the prisons, the hospitals, the congress, the executive, the values - pretty much everything."

No matter how great the urge, don't do this again Clav. You are letting your inner geezer show.

On the other hand, look at technology and civil rights. I am Black and female. I think I have a better chance at self actualization today than the women of the past.

A statute of King Edward III amended the Great Charter (Magna Carta) in 1354 to read thus:

"No man of what estate or condition that he be, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of the law."

You will notice that the wording is very similar to the due process amendment in the United States constitution.

Theoretically, US law can go as far back as far as it needs in reference to the English law that formed the basis of law in the colony prior to the declaration of independence, provided it's pertinent and despite the fact many US lawmakers have a differing oponion on whether that should be the case.

Whatever the case, due process and habeus corpus form the cornerstones of the law that you (and I) have inherited and which has served us all so well for the best part of 1000 years.

The US government has a big problem with this, because no one's actually declared war - in a legal sense, and Guantanamo to all intents and purposes is US territory. It's only NOT regarded as such in a bizarre technicality dreamed up by bushco.

Which means that its jailing of enemy combatants on US territory means a) they are not PoWs (but criminals) and b) they have therefore been brought onto US territory under provisions of US criminal law that allows this.

All of which means they are theoretically entitled to the same treatment any foreign national would get say if they were sent for trial in New York, Smallville or San Antonio.

Therefore, the provisions of US criminal must apply:

Those provisions include: the right to a swift and fair trial by a jury of your peers.

The writ of Habeus Corpus to ensure that is the case.

Due process.

You can't hold people in custody indefinitely in defiance of the provisions both of US law and international law, while trying to sell American democracy and justice to the rest of the world.

The two things are mutually exclusive, and therein lies the problem not just for US lawmakers but also for everything the US is meant to stand for.

I agree tough times call for tough measures, but let's not push these measures to way outside the boundaries of what has worked for 1000 years, and what marks the point of difference between US and THEM.

Dan,

this statement is simply wrong:

"...What it cannot do is to overrule the law of unintended consequences. That law is beyond its reach and has the status of a law of physics."

Nonsense. You are guilty of gross hyperbole. Whatever "the law of unintended consequences" is, it is not a Law Of Physics.

Dan,

This is not new law but a judgement on old law and old custom.

"Actually, in Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court did make new law, by overturning years of Supreme Court precedent."

Biffle,

No, the law of unintended consequences is not a law of physics. It has the status of a law of physics, because it can't be changed. It can only be avoided. Physics suggests that if I drop a fifty pound weight it will fall down (assuming that gravity exists). If my toe is immediately beneath it, injury to my toe will probably result. Assuming that I did not wish to hurt my toe, that is an unintended consequence. This unintended consequence could have been avoided by looking where I was about to drop the weight.

Dan

Question from the layman-

Why exactly are we even having this discussion? It seems to me (emphasis on "SEEMS") that by making use of Habeas Corpus in ANY type of proceeding, one lends that much more credibility to the outcome of those proceedings. To condemn any man of any nationality for any reason, without telling him why he is condemned, let alone the evidence supporting such condemnation, renders our nation, IMO, not worthy of my (or anyone else's)life, fortune or sacred honor.

I surmize that all of us who have been beating up on Dan, myself included, have, perhaps, missed something. In rereading Dan's post and comments, I feel he may not necessarily oppose the substance of the decision, but rather the poor manner in which the court rendered it. In that he likely has a valid point. Poorly constructed law and court decisions often incur more, and more complex problems than those they were set out to resolve. One should, I assume, expect more from the highest court in the land.

That being said, the gauntlet has now been passed back down to the lower courts and perhaps back into the lap of Congress to disentangle. The hope of those of us who stand in oppostion to the improper treatment of the gitmo detainees (and, presumably those held elsewhere,) is that this "disentanglement" will fall to courts and a Congress more sympathetic with our stance, and better equipped to take on the issues both swiftly and intelligently. It may well be in the detainees' interest to allow things to languish a bit longer until a new Congress is seated which, if current predictions are accurate, will be more apt to side in their favor.

I don't believe this counts as "bleeding heart liberal" politics, but rather a recognition that we are, as a nation, losing our way as regards the bases of our democracy and the rule of law. Most of us "lefties" I'm sure recognize that amongst the detainees are likely from our perspective some very bad men; men who definitely pose a very real threat to this country. But again I reiterate: Democracy is a risky business. In some cases the higher principles upon which we stand must take precedence over concerns of convenience and security. In that light, we expect the people put in place to carry out the prosecution of the detainees do their jobs to the best of their abilities. Will some of the bad guys fall through the cracks? Perhaps. But, at least, we will not be looked upon as hypocrites if we follow established, long acknowledged procedures which go toward guaranteeing fair and timely trials for all.

B-tone

I feel he may not necessarily oppose the substance of the decision, but rather the poor manner in which the court rendered it. In that he likely has a valid point.

I had that impression, too, B-tone. And as I understand it, Justice Kennedy (who wrote the opinion) has a little bit of a reputation for overwritten opinions with somewhat slipshod legal language. Not as balls-out sloppy jurisprudence as, say, Clarence Thomas, but not as good as it should be.

Dan, I'd be curious to know if you found any illumination or improvement in Souter's brief concurrence?

B-tone says (and MJW concurs):

"In rereading Dan's post and comments, I feel he may not necessarily oppose the substance of the decision..."

Exactly.

As Dan points out in the article, he is himself an attorney, and is looking at (and discussing) the decision with an attorney's eye as to the viability and workability of the decision, and what those elements might portend for future interpretations (by other courts) of the decision.

That's the central point of the entire article.

MJW

Yes, I found Mr. Justice Souter's brief concurring opinion better written and more understandable. Unfortunately, it does not cure the basic problems with the majority opinion.

Here is an example: he refers to the fact that "some of" the petitioners -- but evidently fewer than all of them -- have been locked up for six years. Six years seems like a long time, and the evidently shorter incarcerations of the others may have been "long" as well. We don't know; nor do we know why the incarcerations have been so long. There are any number of possibilities, bearing in mind that the acts on which detainee status was determined occurred in places some of which remain in enemy hands. Yet the naked fact of the duration seems to be a key point to all five justices in the majority.

The majority opinion notes that customarily it would remand the proceeding to the Court of Appeals to inquire into various matters, including these, but that to do so here would extend the period of incarceration.

It seems to me that the better course would have been for the Court to have remanded the proceeding to the Court of Appeals for an expedited determination as to whether the statute as applied was unconstitutional, in light of standards articulated with more clarity than in the majority opinion as written. I very seriously doubt that this would have resulted in more delay than what the Court actually did, and suspect that the ultimate resolution of the matter could have been far better informed.

Dan

Baritone, MJW and Clav,

Thanks, guys. However, I don't think anyone has been "beating up on" me. Most of the comments have been good ones, and I have tried to respond.

I wrote the article in a way which I hoped would provoke discussion, and it did; that's the fun part.

As to whether I agree "substantively" with the Court's decision, I frankly don't know for the simple reason that I don't understand it. Nor, I fear, will those called upon to act in response to it. The Court could and should have done a far better job. Instead, it more than likely extended that which it sought to shorten, and confused that which it should have clarified. Even a "relativistic moralist" might well conclude that these are bad things, not good things.

Dan

'if they agree with the liberal side, they're "legislating from the bench" agree with the right, and they're the most knowledgable people on the face of the earth.'

Jet, we've talked about this before, and you're totally wrong. See the link for a BC article, "So You Think John McCain Can't Dance". I said in the comments that judicial activism is a matter of the way a ruling is reached, not of the ruling itself. This case is a perfect example of judicial activism. The Court made its decision based on its view of right and wrong, not on precedent, the Constitution, common law, or original intent.

It's your side of the aisle that's interpreting this decision politically. You cite Bush, Roberts, and Scalia as if those names are sufficient proof. You argue over the decency of the decision versus the decency of the law. But it's not the Court's job to determine decency. That's the heart of the matter: the Court rules on legality.

Clav,

I must agree with Zedd that as she said, your "inner geezer" is showing regarding your rather gloom and doom take on the current state of the world and your gazing back to what I guess you feel were the "good old days."

As I see it, there were no good old days. In retrospect life may seem to have been simpler then, but actually were probably believed at the time to be difficult and complex for those living it.

Also, as Zedd states, life has in fact gotten better for a number of people. I think this goes back, at least in part to your attitude toward boomers. You seem to have a jaundiced view of today's society.

Life today is certainly more complex and multi-faceted than in earlier times, but there is also a great deal of good, a great deal of wonderment to be had. As bad as some believe the internet to be, it is, IMO, perhaps the single greatest development in, I can't say how many years. With a little knowledge of how it works, huge volumes of information can be had with a few key strokes which is in itself unprecedented in our history.

I'm not going to argue with you at this point regarding who invented what (boomers or not,) but it is clear that advances in science and medicine have made it possible for us to live longer and in better health with greater and greater comfort and convenience. At present, we remain in too much love with technology and its products - that is, we are far too materialistic, but that, as I see it, is to be expected. At some point we will likely get over it, and hopefully focus more attention to how these things can help more people, perhaps one day, all people to live fuller, better lives.

Sure, there is a downside to all this, but if humanity ultimately finds the strength of character to overcome our frailties, our penchant for wallowing in the dregs, and raise ourselves up beyond our worst tendancies, the end result may render the bad stuff just an unfortunate blip on the screen. How big that "if" is, I can't say.

B-tone

Baronius,

What was the court voting on that decided the presidential election in 2000?

B-tone

Dan, a lot of the lawyers I know agree with you on the matter of the Supreme Court not laying out clear rules.

This used to be the biggest thing in the study of law: stating a rule or a test that could be universally applied, and arguing out all the implications of it. That helped a law student develop a legal mind. Nowadays, a law student is taught to memorize cases. The reasoning in one decision doesn't follow logically from the reasoning in another.

This is reflected in the number of cases, too. If precedent and reasoning were clear, there would be no reason to file an unprecedented motion. But these days there's a chance that some judge may interpret the law differently, or ignore the law altogether, so every crazy idea is worth a try.

Of course, the blame rests ultimately on the Supreme Court itself, the court of last resort. They're the ones who should be providing guidance. But every year they hear more and more cases, and try to walk a middle ground between the court's factions, and legal consistency suffers further.

Baritone (#33) - huh?

Baronius,

Was the Supreme Court in its ruling regarding the revote in Florida ruling simply on "legality?" Or were there other things at work there?

B-tone

B-tone:

First of all, my remark was posted in response to bliffle's question (comment #12) as to whether we are "less men than the Americans of 64 years ago," to which I emphatically replied "yup," then elaborated on that answer to include the comparison between the US of then, compared with the US of today. Nowhere did I talk of "good old days," because I have yet to see what I consider to be "good old (or new) days" in my lifetime.

"...your rather gloom and doom take on the current state of the world..."

Not "gloom and doom," so much as disdain and disgust, as I elaborated a few weeks ago in our discussion of the boomers.

Actually I was referring to the US only, not the world. As a bicultural individual who was raised and has lived outside the US much of my life, I, like Ruvy and other expats (and foreigners) on these boards, am not nearly as enamored of the USA (of today) as a society as you and those who have only lived here are.

"You seem to have a jaundiced view of today's society."

Not to mention a significant portion of its citizens.

"...advances in science and medicine have made it possible for us to live longer..."

Not always a good thing. Terry Schiavo comes to mind. We have not yet even imagined the very serious ethical questions which will arise out of our ability to extend life, and it appears that no one's really paying attention.

"...if humanity ultimately finds the strength of character to overcome our frailties..."

Character is exactly the issue. IMO, within my lifetime it has not been more lacking in the USA than it is now.

Baritone - thanks for the clarification. Considering that they ruled 7-2 that the recount violated the equal protection clause, I have to assume that they were following legal reasoning. As for the 5-4 decision to stop the recount, it seems to follow from the equal protection ruling, but I can see how that may have been too aggressive.

As a practical matter, there was no way that a recount could have been concluded in the limited time. But the Court shouldn't be ruling on practical matters.

Clav,

I think you are dead wrong about America and Americans. Even though I am a lefty and find many things lacking in both our society and certainly our government, I believe that there is a great deal of good to be found in the U.S. Obviously, the bad gets more press, but I have observed and consider a lot of what's going on here as ultimately good.

I hope to put together a further discussion, perhaps at my blog rather than here regarding all of this, and the importance of boomers in particular to where we are today, looking at both the positives and negatives.

This is somewhat strange in that with this particular argument, we seem to have switched positions. I respect a good deal of what you've written and believe you to be one of the more thoughtful and fair contributors here. But I do feel that you are far more disdainful and pessimistic regarding boomers and the current state of American society than is warranted. These are highly unprecedented times. Sorting through it all, and in the process making value judgments on an entire society, or an entire generation is difficult at best. You just can't paint it all with one brush, from one can of disgruntlement and disgust. To do so on its face is inaccurate and grossly unfair to a lot of people.

B-tone

Baronius -

Considering that they ruled 7-2 that the recount violated the equal protection clause

That's not true. Seven justices suggested that agreed that there were problems with the recount. However, two of those justices (Breyer and Souter) felt not that it violated the equal protection clause, only that the case should be remanded to the Florida Supreme Court. Only four EVER felt that those problems were serious enough that the recount should be stopped.

But that's a detail. I have to go back to your comment in #31:

It's your side of the aisle that's interpreting this decision politically.

I won't categorically deny that the left isn't interpreting it politically. But you here imply that the right is not. When you have John McCain denouncing the ruling without reading it, and Scalia's usual overwrought rhetoric that the ruling will "surely cause more Americans to die," it is disingenuous (to say the least) to suggest that your side of the aisle is not politicizing the decision.

Clav, Baritone,

One of the most exciting developments of our time is the in vogue status of being over 40. When I look at movies from the 40's its difficult to imagine that those old looking characters were in their 20's and 30's. It is actually cool to be older. In times passed all of us (regulars) on these boards would be nearly put out to pasture. Dan is living it up in Panama, Clav you are in sunny Florida and the rest of us are reaching for the stars in our respective corners of the globe. It's a good thing. It's a good time.

Boomers are annoying though :o)

Zedd,

Two comments:

1. AMEN!

2. Socrates also expressed displeasure with the then younger generation. If it weren't past my bedtime, I would try to find a link.

Dan

B-tone,

Fair enough. It does seem funny that on this issue we both seem to have "switched sides."

"I respect a good deal of what you've written and believe you to be one of the more thoughtful and fair contributors here."

I appreciate that, and do try (except when I rant) to see as much as possible of both (or all) sides of every issue.

I have similar respect for your viewpoints as well, and for the same reasons; you are not only a thoughtful man, but an eminently fair one, as well; I have always enjoyed debating with you on the issues.

In that spirit I will concede that I may be somewhat overreacting to what I see around me and in the media. In my own defense, I will say that such overreaction is probably generated by the idealized picture of America and Americans instilled in me by my parents, both expats, who were afraid that their three Mexican-born kids would not be "American enough" (they actually told me, the oldest, that! I was offended, because then, at 7 or 8 years old, I considered myself exclusively Mexican.).

My father, a first generation American and WW II veteran, and my mother, whose Irish grandparents fled the threat of starvation during the 19th century, coming to America penniless but proud, and awed to be in the land of plenty, only to be looked down upon and suppressed for more than a generation because they were Irish, yet, oddly, never losing their enthusiasm for their new homeland; these people, my parents, never, in all those years in Mexico, stopped being Americans.

I do recognize, B-tone, that not all contemporary Americans are deserving of my negative opinion of the entire cohort, but, sadly, we are no longer the sturdy, individualistic, and self-reliant people we once were. Today, we turn with outstretched hands to the government to soothe and fulfill our every hurt, whether real or imagined; where once we we picked our own paths and fought our own way through the vicissitudes of life, helping each other as individuals and in family and community groups, not from a gargantuan bureaucracy which literally feeds on the misery it is charged with relieving, perpetuating both itself and the misery.

Damn. I've segued into yet another rant, when my intent was to acknowledge the truth that probably lies somewhere between our two (seemingly reversed) positions, B-tone.

What I do firmly, devoutly, and hopefully (in the classic sense) believe, is that, like you and I, we should all listen to each other.

And, maybe, just maybe, we all will.

Again.

Clav,

I both appreciate and value your sentiments. We two come at all this from somewhat different perspectives.

My mother's side of the family was pretty much all English - Cox and Watson. My father's side is less clear in that his grandfather was adopted. Sadly, as far as I know, I haven't a drop of Irish blood in my veins. What little I've garnered from various sources is that my paternal grandfather's birth mother may have been Swiss, or perhaps German or even Austrian. I haven't a clue where my paternal grandmother came from. At this juncture, I don't even know what her maiden name was.

Nevertheless, I was pretty much raised in a very mundane middle class, midwestern American home with virtually no sense of any particular ethnic background. Kind of a vanilla milk shake.

My wife (of now nearly 36 years) however came from a strongly Italian background, although she is at least 3rd generation American. A few of her aunts and uncles (now mostly gone) still spoke the native language to one degree or another.

Her father's immediate family - one having 11 children, my wife being the oldest of 8, were and are for the most part just the kind of people you refer to - independent, hard working, resilient, industrious and strongly family oriented. For many years their lives orbited around the family grocery - a little neighborhood store with saw dust on the floor and pickles in large barrels serving the small Italian community gathered around the near south side of Indianapolis.

Eventually, all but two of the eleven kids, including my father in-law married and had kids of their own - 33 in all. Of those, I'm guessing about 75% of our (largely boomer generation) have also married and birthed a number of kids - my wife and I account for two. Of course, now the next generation are following suit. I can't guess how many little ones there may be. It scares me to think about it. I'm thinking if all were still living and put together in one place, the Mascari clan and its in-laws and heirs would make for a town large enough to need a mayor and town council.

While, as would be predicted from any group of people numbering in, I'm guessing, in the low hundreds, there are and have been a few relative failures, by and large, the whole bunch, from the grandparents on down, including most of the boomers, have done reasonably well. Many have been very productive entrepreneurs, and many have done well in a wide variety of pursuits.

The family has over the years split wide apart geographically. Most remained in or around Indy, but some live in Ohio, California, Illinois, NYC, New Jersey, Florida, France and my older son, as I have often noted, lives and works in Germany.

It is certainly not the same as it was. The old Italian neighborhood has but a few remaining die hard Paisanos. While Holy Rosary Catholic Church just had its 25th annual Italian fest over this last week-end, and it is always packed, there is little evidence of any overtly Italian folks to be seen.

But the sense of family remains. Most stay in touch one way or another. I must admit I don't know some of the names or who is who's kid, even after nearly 36 years.

I don't know that this little bit of family history proves anything one way or another. But it does provide at least anecdotal evidence that there does remain at least vestiges of the old life. Mainly what was best about it. And, there remains, again for the most part the sense of individualism, curiosity and wonderment of the larger world.

I know, of course, one can find the whole gamut of people in this country - the indigent, the welfare queens, the slackers, blue collar, white collar and everything up to industry giants, scientists, craftsmen (and women,) computer whizzes, artists, writers, musicians, politicians and on and on, amongst the boomers and those who have come since.

It's a complex stew, this melting pot; not only of people of different cultures, but of different minds, different abilities, different ethics, different religions, no religion and different philosophies.

It all seems a chaotic mess, and it all could blow sky high. But, maybe not.

B-tone

George Will weighs in with -- no disrespect to your work here, Dan -- the most considered, insightful analysis of the Gitmo decision and its probable consequences.

McCain is becoming more apt to hyperbole, gross exaggeration and careless, off-hand remarks. I don't believe he does his homework. On the other hand, Obama seems always on top of things, only rarely being caught unawares. This, among other things may harken the death knell of McCain's campaign.

B-tone

MJW

Thanks for the link. George Will seems to understand the confusion likely to result from the Supreme Court's decision. His article shows much more insight than the typical comments (as distinguished from most of those on this thread), such as habeas corpus is great and should be available to everyone everywhere, or that the damn terrorists should be taken out and shot summarily.

Dan

dan: "habeas corpus is great and should be available to everyone everywhere, or that the damn terrorists should be taken out and shot summarily."

well, for those there already, it's the former. for those still out there, it's the latter.

i don't really believe that.

Clavos & Baritone - I'd like to join the debate about the quality of our national character.

You see a lot of articles and comments on this site that insult Americans in passing. It's treated like a truism that Americans are dumb, lazy, and easily distracted. I don't buy it. There's a line from "Men in Black" where Will Smith says that people can handle the knowledge that there are aliens among us. Jones replies that a person is smart, but people are stupid and dangerous. That's the way Americans are viewed: successful individually but collectively a failure.

I find that when I spend time with people, in real life or on the net, that I walk away impressed. Most everyone has some extraordinary talent or cause.

- ISP crashing - will continue -

Actually, I don't have much more to say than that. Most people are humble, or afraid of standing out. It's the weird behaviour I remember from high school, where everyone walks out of a test talking about how badly they did. No one wants to be noticed for their exceptional skills or actions.

I don't know what motivates it. It could be a twisted egalitarianism, in which anyone who appears better must be torn down. That ties into the American obsession with exposing hypocrisy. And the desire to not be noticed stands side-by-side with the desperate need to be a superstar.

Anyway, there's a point here. If individuals seem special and the group seems worthless, we're probably perceiving things wrong. The odds are low that everyone in America is a jerk except for everyone I know. Prior "great" generations didn't think of themselves as special, but were ultimately respected for their accomplishments. It makes me think that we're a lot better than we look.

Well said, sir.

Here's one area where I think we are definitely going downhill: the whole concept of Political Correctness and its subset of "Hate Speech."

Together, they have created a new attitude of acceptance of censorship in the land.

Definitely not a good trend.

Widespread acceptance of hate speech is what allowed Adolf Hitler to con otherwise-ordinary Germans into some of the most heinous crimes ever ... always worth remembering why people have a bit of a down on it.

Too often, hate speech is an invitation and an encouragement to do the wrong thing, even if it doesn't directly address that issue. IMO, it doesn't belong in the category of what any reasonable person would regard as free speech.

I'd bet London to a brick what the founding fathers meant by free speech wasn't an absolute right to say anything you like regardless of the consequences, but a call to stand up for what you believe in and the freedom to express that without fear or favour - ie, if you don't like a government or the actions of its representatives.

Political correctness, well, that's another thing altogether.

That is killing us by slowly stifling free thought and is becoming absurd. There's a fine line betwen the two things (hate speech and political correctness), but there's a line nevertheless.

My point is not about Hate Speech" per se; rather it's about what is being defined as hate speech these days. As the article I cited above notes:

"The trial is before a court with the Orwellian title of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The accused are Maclean's magazine and author Mark Steyn. The crime: In mocking and biting tones, they wrote that Islam threatens Western values." (emphasis added)

And:

"To say the Armenian massacres of 1915-1924 were an attempt at genocide is a crime in Turkey."

These are but two examples of the definition of hate speech being carried too far.

Baronius,

When I was a kid in high school -- it was an Episcopalian boys' school -- we wore coats and ties and were pretty respectful of adults. When a teacher or other adult entered the room, we stood up. Kids who offended the norms were sent to the headmaster's office and normally received detention, which generally meant several hours working on the school grounds on a Saturday, under adult supervision. This was good, I think.

However, I need to keep in mind a comment attributed to Socrates about the youth of Athens back in 500 B.C.:

" Youth today love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, no respect for older people and talk nonsense when they should work. Young people do not stand up any longer when adults enter the room. They contradict their parents, talk too much in company, guzzle their food, lay their legs on the table and tyrannise their elders"

Clav,

We are, I think, in complete agreement about political correctness. It is a terrible thing, right up there with antibiotic resistant bacteria. You brought up the subject, so you should write an article about it. If you don't I shall. You should consider that a challenge.

Dan

¡Felicidades, Caballero!

May you have many happy returns!

You've presented me with an interesting challenge; I shall have to ponder on it.

Meanwhile, if you're inspired, go for it. I will certainly participate in the comments thread.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria. Interesting analogy. Antibiotics protect us from the mildly harmful stuff, but just about guarantee us that when something strong comes along, it will wipe us out.

Just like political correctness.

Just like the latest Supreme Court decision.

I understand the feelings about the abuse of defining what is or isn't "politically correct."

I agree that often these things are taken too far. But, it is defining that "fine line" Surfer refers to that, I think is difficult. What may seem completely over the top to any of you or I, may, in fact, be very damaging or hurtful to others. In our impatient response to some things we may not quite understand the context or significance of say, some particular word or words to another group of people. There are a number of pretty well known key words and phrases that we avoid using under normal circumstances owing to their offensive, inflammatory nature. But, there are likely many, probably hundreds of things that, if written or said in a particular context, and/or a particular time and place amongst a particular group of people could well be offensive to them.

Certainly, there are those who take this all over the top. The response of muslims to the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed is a prime example. That people have died and buidings have been bombed in response to it, is IMO, ludicrous. Of course, the current situation between muslims and the rest of the world is so politically charged that almost anything has and will likely be taken as an offense and manipulated for political advantage.

While it is often maddening, it is perhaps better to err on the side of caution. In the end, it comes down to individual choices.

B-tone

Political correctness is what used to be called etiquette or in other circumstances, diplomacy. In times passed, it was considered to be appropriate among civil individuals to refrain from making statements or performing acts that would cause offense. However, these niceties weren't extended to "others". "The others"y were considered to be non entities. It is now considered frivolous to practice etiquette when dealing with "the others". Respecting people's cultures is eye rolling because of our own arrogance, ignorance and intolerance.

I do believe that many who find political correctness an unnecessary bother may not have personally been a target of some kind of demeaning words whether in jest or in earnest.

Surely Clavos must have experienced or at least heard demeaning jabs at Mexicans and/or Mexican Americans. He refers to his mother's Irish roots and the abuse, verbal and otherwise, her grandparents' suffered after coming to the U.S.

I'm sure much the same was true of my wife's Italian forebears in what they encountered in the early years of their immigration.

Of course, such abuse was much more blatant in years past. Verbal slights have become much more subtle, sophisticated even, in today's world.
As I've acknowledged, some of these things have been taken to unintended extremes, but again, it is difficult to recognize just where the "thin line" is.

Steyn's comments have to be investigated by the tribunal simply because a complaint has been made. It's doubtful whether what he wrote can ultimately be regarded as impinging on the human rights of muslims, or as hate speech, but no doubt the tribunal will waste a fortune in taxpayer dollars investigating it, and probably come up empty-handed. You are right though Clav ... that is political correctness gone mad.

In defence of such mechanisms, however, I believe while Steyn's case indicates how far political correctness can be stretched to the point of foolishness, they do fulfill a purpose where complaints that actually do have some substance are lodged.

That would fall into the realm of the kind of racist nonsense spouted by neo-nazis, white supremacy groups or any other groups with radical "solutions" for dealing with races other than their own.

That's the true function of those bodies ...

They have their place (the US itself actually pushes many nations into establishing such bodies), and I for one don't agree with the American notion that it's OK to say anything you like without regard to the consequences.

Sounds good in principle, but I don't reckon it works and it certainly doesn't contribute to a civil society.

Somewhere, there's got to be a line in the sand. Eventually, we'll all work out where that is.

The problem with political correctness is that reality is not always 'politically correct'.

Democracy is rarely polite.

You want a line in the sand? How about this one: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

"Democracy is rarely polite."

Agreed.

So, does anyone believe that this GTMO decision is worse than Dred Scott, Plessey/Ferguson, or even Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific?

From another article, titled Canada's Thought Police, about the Steyn case:

"Indeed, it seems there is no escaping the charge of promoting "hate" in Canada at all. In 31 years, the national Human Rights Commission has never dismissed a case as unfounded.

Baritone: "You want a line in the sand? How about this one: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Yes, oldie but a goodie and I agree with that, mostly. Except where that "right" extends to statements along the lines of: "Jews should be eradicated because they are the cause of the world's problems", or "all niggers/latinos/cracker asses are a waste of space and oxygen and should be disposed of".

That stuff falls into the domain of Adolf Hitler's nice little nod to democracy, and as we all know, that went way beyond not being polite. Which is why, and quite rightly, it's against the law in most parts of western Europe to say that kind of stuff.

As they are well aware, those kinds of statements go a long way to encouraging into action those who'd be predisposed to such a train of thought.

So on this, I reckon they're right and you're wrong.

Free speech is a right that comes with certain responsibilities, and if you can't be responsible, then it can't be absolute (and it's not anyway in the US).

Besides, I find it hard to understand why in any civilised country people think that vilification on the basis of race, or verbal or written encouragement to break the perfectly reasonable laws that gives us our reedoms, even vaguely constitutes free speech.

Having said that, I don't believe Steyn's story falls into the category of vilification or hate speech or anything even resembling it. The hue and cry over it in Canada simply falls into the realm of political correctness gone mad.

It's well-known that certain elements of the global Muslim community have thin skins when it comes to views like Steyn's, which in any other setting (applied, say, to Opus Dei Catholics, or polygamists in Utah) probably wouldn't have been given a second thought.

STM,

Check your attributes.

Baritone

Why? I haven't attributed anything to anyone. Baritone: read the posts :)

Voltaire??

Even the most rabid sypporters of American-style "anything goes" speech masquerading as free speech would have to draw a line in the sand for someone, like, say Fred Phelps and his supporters, or white supremacist groups calling for crimes of violence against non-whites or jews, or muslims, surely?

I just don't see it the way you guys do. I respect your right to believe it, but I don't agree with it.

In my view, it doesn't constitute free speech.

Free Speech? Hardly. It is obvious that charges for telephone calls, internet usage, newspapers and all other means of communication infringe free speech. Why weren't the authors of the U.S. Constitution more specific on these matters.

Dan

STM - You credited the Voltaire quote to Baritone instead of me. You're saying that I'm wrong, not him. And maybe I am wrong. But my instinct says that hate speech laws give a mystique to racism. It becomes cool and dangerous, like smoking. Add to that the fact that some of what racists say is true (NOT the stuff about race, but the stuff about some cultures being better than others), and hate speech takes on the appearance of suppressed truth.

The best way to eliminate racism is to give a podium to the Klan. They'll be laughed out of town. The best way to propogate it is to drive it underground and make it more appealing to the paranoid. So like I said, I could be wrong on this one. But my practical reading of human nature and my ideological opposition to speech codes point me in the same direction.

Sorry Baronius: it was 2am here when I wrote that.

On topic, the last time the Klan had a podium - and ears willing to listen - was in the deep south in the 100 years leading up to the civil rights era.

Didn't help much then. They weren't laughed out of too many towns. The key here is that the message falls on the audience for which it's intended. I just don't buy the mystique argument. either. It's a cop out. I understand perfectly why such things as holocaust denial and vilification on the lines of race or sexuality etc are banned in some countries, especially when some of those countries suffered dreadfully at the hands of one particular country that felt no compunction to stop its citizens from spreading hate speech that led to millions of deaths. Maybe the thing with the US is that it's been so sheltered, and remains so isolated psychologically, it has no real concept of where these things can lead.

But here's a little experiment that'd be worth doing: let's move away from the WASP community in the US a bit, and go and ask blacks, latinos, jews, other minorities, what they think of the notion of free speech without regard to consequence.

I bet the answer's different to the one you'll get in nice, middle-class Republican White Breadsville, USA.

My view is simply this: that some forms of speech that people might think come under the umbrella of free speech and the protections given actually don't constitute free speech at all - they're an incitement to criminal acts.

Where the line blurs is where ridiculous political correctness meets hate speech, and unfortunately too many people are mixing them up. I say: ban the ridiculous political correctness that really is killing free speech, and ban hate speech, which is really a crime.

And Dan, stop being a fucking smart-arse ... you're fair-dinkum better than that :)

Surfer,

Sometimes, I find this board to be great therapy and that being a smart ass keeps me from going out and punching someone in the nose. That could be a problem, not only because I might get hurt but also because there just aren't many people in my rural area of Panama whom I would like to punch in the nose. They are not politically correct, and fortunately that notion has not festered here. The nicknames for fat people, skinny people, Black people and Chinese people are traditionally "Gordo," "Flaco," "Chombo" and "Chino." Many small stores are owned and operated by people of Chinese origin, and the stores are uniformly referred to "the Chino." Nobody is offended, and that's just the way it is. They seem to like it that way, and so do I. An alternative to being a smart ass would be to cry, which would mean I would have to go our and buy a new keyboard, probably at a Chino.

Hate speech is rather an amorphous concept, which means very different things to different people. I don't think the concept is helpful, nor do I think that the companion concept of hate crime is useful. Common civility (rarely taught in schools) and laws against murder, assault, arson, etc. should be sufficient regardless of whether precipitated by hatred of Black, Chinese, fat or skinny people. We tend to pass new laws, which substantially duplicate old laws, without much thought to whether the old laws are capable of dealing with he problems.

Incidentally, there is another thread where these matters are dealt with at greater length. (:>) (I hope that is a "smiley face;" I'm too new at this stuff to know how to do one properly).

Dan

Surfer:

How do you feel about speech advocating the (non violent) overthrow of the government?

Pornography?

Religious speech advocating anti-scientific ideas?

Just for the record, I believe the 1st Amendment protects all of the above.

I have lived in cultures where speech was not entirely free. I think the US handles this issue best.

Clav,

Amen!

Despite all the nasty things I sometimes say, I still think that the people in the U.S. are, for the most part, capable of distinguishing grossly stupid and terribly harmful idea from the merely absurd; sometimes it takes a while, but the best way to have grossly stupid and terribly harmful ideas exposed as such is to have them articulated and debated. That is what the First Amendment is all about.

Dan

In light of my comment#76, I consider it my civic duty to call attention to the following medical information concerning internet addicts:

They suffer four symptoms: They forget to eat and sleep; they need more advanced technology or more hours online as they develop 'resistance' to the pleasure given by their current system; if they are deprived of their computer, they experience genuine withdrawal symptoms; And in common with other addictions, the victims also begin to have more arguments, to suffer fatigue, to get lower marks in tests and to feel isolated from society.

Clav,

I feel good about all those three ideas (except where it might involve child pornography). Actually, I'd think in my country I'd see them as rights

A call for the non violent overthrow of a government is free speech; inciting people to violence is not.

Dan: "but the best way to have grossly stupid and terribly harmful ideas exposed as such is to have them articulated and debated."

Well, coming from a background that also holds free speech to be an inalienable right, I can also tell you that there is a large number of people in this country who no matter how often ideas are exposed or articulated, will never stop believing that there are people who are inferior simply because of their race, creed, colour, or sexuality, and will wish them harm - and it's at those people legislation against hate speech is aimed.

Some of them are malicious, but a lot of are just plain ignorant and stupid (which makes them vulnerable to hate messages).

It's no different in the US in my experience.

I like the idea that the right to free speech comes with a rider - that's it also a privelege only granted to a society by rule of law (see throughout history what happens when you don't have that), and comes with certain responsibilities.

If you can't abide by those responsibilities, then you deserve a rap over the knuckles.

See, I reckon a citizen also has a right - yes, I see this as a right - not to be vilified, bullied, ostracised or belittled simply because someone thinks they can because they believe it falls into the category of "free speech". The American focus on the individual is great up to a point, but at a certain point community and majority view has to come into play as well.

You'll never convince me that vilification or calls to violent action on the basis of race, socio-economic status, religion or sexuality falls into the category of free speech.

It's also why the United States still has defamation laws, so even in the US, contrary to the belief of many Americans who don't understand this, the right to free speech is not absolute.

It's better than most places, granted, but it falls down in some areas in my view.

As I said to Clav above, calling for the Government to be brought down, holding a placard outside the Prime Minister's residence stating he's a dickhead, or digging for information that governments might try to hide and exposing it in the press because it benefits the people who elected that government, all that stuff falls into the category of free speech.

Telling people we should get rid of blacks/latinos/jews/muslims/whatever doesn't.

I think Americans are deluded in relation to certain aspects of the 1st and 2nd amendments, in that they take the "rights" of the individual too far and place them above the rights of American society as a whole, with disastrous consequences.

Sorry boys, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I believe what I believe.

Ya got me there, Surfer.

I am American enough to believe the rights of the individual trump the rights of the society.

Always.

Even more. The only rights 'society' has are those which are delegated to it by individuals or which exist to protect the rights of individuals.

Dave

But none of these exist without rule of law as enacted by properly elected governments.

You've been to enough places to know where I'm coming from here.

Perhaps the differences I express here are the essential differences between our society and yours.

They aren't that different, but they are.

I guess we're not rights driven like Americans. When the government was writing the constitution here at the time of the federation of the states, it was decided not to include a bill of rights because the rights that would have been enumerated therein were already taken to exist.

I don't have any fear that they'll be taken away, either.

We think it's worked fine for 1000 years, whereas you guys had those nasty little episodes with the mother country that passed us by.

Is Australia a picture of what America might have been like had it not been for that?

Interesting thought I reckon.

Which individuals?

Which society?

Do the rights of the individual George Bush trump the rights of society to protect individuals of Persian descent who are American by birth?

Do the rights of the individual George Bush trump the rights of societies legislature which passes laws prohibiting torture?

Do the rights of the individual George Bush trump the rights of societies founders to write a constitution separating politics and religion?

Which individual rights trump which society rights?

Good questions bliff.

And do Fred Phelps' rights trump those of the families of slain loved ones whose funerals he tries to disrupt with hateful bile?

Do the rights of white supremacist groups which, through dissemination of literature have "passively" encouraged young people to commit violence, trump those who were the victims of it?

Ad infinitum.

These are all pertinent questions, and they can't all be answered by libertarian-sounding throw-away lines about the 1st amendment and the rights of individuals.

American law and the 1st amendment don't give absolute rights to free speech anyway, so those throw-away lines are just that.

Serious debate on this also needs to recognise that there is a huge difference between absurd political correctness as it exists say in Canada and the UK and what constitutes genuine hate speech.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Surely it follows therefore that the individual can never come before society?

On the other hand, individuals should have the absolute maximum of freedom possible within these broader considerations.

...but Chris - you nasty alien socialist you - you're talking about the US where the liberty of the few outweighs the needs of the many...historically speaking that is

Actually, that's been a triumph of myth, legend and movie making rather than an actual fact.

"Actually, that's been a triumph of myth, legend and movie making rather than an actual fact."

Really? Then, why are the activities (short of violence) of the KKK and other, similar groups protected?

And, despite Stan's opinion, those of Fred Phelps and his followers?

What about the rights of NAMBLA, so vigorously defended by the ACLU?

Because constitutionally, they should be.

All cases where "the liberty of the few outweighs the needs of the many."

Mate, you've lost me on NAMBLA.

Locked up I'd agree with, but protected ... nah.

That's going to extremes.

They don't deserve anything but our contempt.

And I'd agree with Rosey here to a certain extent about myth, self-promotion and hollywood legend.

With respect, and I understand why you believe it to be true, but I do think you guys delude yourselves with some aspects of this stuff sometimes.

It all sounds great in theory, but the original good intention often doesn't tally up very well with the reality.

I doubt the founding fathers meant the kinds of protections you mention above, nor had any inkling when they were writing the second amendment and thinking about 500,000 single-shot muskets how firearms would evolve and that there'd be 300 million of 'em (the ones we know about) causing absolute mayhem in modern America.

And wasn't it a famous founding father who said it's doubtful that they got it right, but would trust future generations of Americans to make changes to the constitution as they saw fit?

Stan - I want to know where you get your maps of the US. Smallville....Republican White Breadsville, USA. Where are these towns???

As far as the free speech thing goes I was always taught that free speech has it's limits...you know the old, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater thing...of course, no one ever said anything about an empty movie theater...

Surfer,

You say,

And wasn't it a famous founding father who said it's doubtful that they got it right, but would trust future generations of Americans to make changes to the constitution as they saw fit?

Clavos, there is no conflict between my statement that the liberty of the few does not outweigh the needs of the many and freedom of speech, so your argument is moot.

The point is that the USA is actually heavily regulated and has a lot of law, whilst the people go round believing they live in the land of the free. That is the triumph of myth and movies over reality.

"It is much easier to "change" the Constitution by getting the courts to muck around with it than by following the procedures set forth in the Constitution itself."

Which, of course, is why it's done that way on an almost continuous basis.

Good point, especially this part: "That does not mean it is a better way."

The courts are not empowered to change the constitution. You should know that. They can check that a legislative law is consistent with the constitution.

Chris,

You have a point.

For some time now, we have succumbed to the shibboleth that we are (and were intended to be) a democracy, to the point that we have steadily eroded our freedoms by means of a series of court decisions "legitimizing" a succession of various tyrannies of the majority.

You are quite right; we are no longer a bastion of freedom.

Sad.

Biffle,

Yep.The courts are not empowered to change the constitution. You should know that. I do know that, and for that reason used quotation marks around the word "change." Sometimes, unfortunately, the concept seems to escape the notice of the Courts.

Dan

I happened to be reading the Constitution today and made an interesting discovery. Habeas Corpus is described in Article 1, Section 9 as a 'privelege' rather than a 'right' (the only enumerated right being to have intellectual property protected), and it specifically says that it can be suspended legally when "the public safety may require it". Sure sounds like blanket coverage for most of the worst things the administration has been accused of.

Dave

Wow Dave thats amazing. You actually picked up the Constitution and read it! My oh my how wonderful for a "libertarian" such as yourself. I do find it interesting in your cute little comment above regarding Habeus Corpus where you say:

"and it specifically says that it can be suspended legally when "the public safety may require it"

Davey you forgot these words too Bubba:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Just a few little words that you forgot thats say quite specifically that the privilege SHALL NOT, be suspended unless there is rebellion or Invasion.


Your claim to be for liberty is a joke imho, and it is even further demonstrated that for the first time in your life you finally came to the realization that one of the cornerstones of our whole republic came from this writ and you did not even know that it was a privilege. Then to pile insult onto injury you omit its most important part in regards to this writ being suspended. And furthermore you dont even defend it when it is under attack. Libertarian my buttocks Dave.

I never cease to be amazed how the great Dave Nalle the "libertarian" almost invariably takes the side of oppression, big brother, and hypocrisy.

Thanks again for re-affirming my opinion of you Dave.

Cheers Bubba

Pablo

Pablo, thanks for reminding us once again that you're not a libertarian. Libertarianism does not originate in the constitution, but in natural rights which transcend the constitution.

Wow Dave thats amazing. You actually picked up the Constitution and read it!

It's one of three documents I've kept by my computer for more than 30 years. You have to guess what the other two are.


Davey you forgot these words too Bubba:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Just a few little words that you forgot thats say quite specifically that the privilege SHALL NOT, be suspended unless there is rebellion or Invasion.

Hardly forgotten. Who would argue that the incursion of terrorists into our country is anything but an invasion?

Your claim to be for liberty is a joke imho, and it is even further demonstrated that for the first time in your life you finally came to the realization that one of the cornerstones of our whole republic came from this writ and you did not even know that it was a privilege. Then to pile insult onto injury you omit its most important part in regards to this writ being suspended. And furthermore you dont even defend it when it is under attack. Libertarian my buttocks Dave.

Habeas Corpus actually originates in English common law, not in the Constitution, and since it derives from the basic natural laws, whether it's recognized in the Constitution or not, it is inherent to all people. In fact, I'd argue that the Constitution's claim to be able to suspend it has no validity.

I never cease to be amazed how the great Dave Nalle the "libertarian" almost invariably takes the side of oppression, big brother, and hypocrisy.

Just presenting an argument for your amusement, Pablo.

And reminding those who think the Constitution is the be all and end all of liberty that they might want to actually read the thing.

Dave

"And reminding those who think the Constitution is the be all and end all of liberty that they might want to actually read the thing."

And, Pablo, you also might want to keep in mind that the damn thing was cribbed, anyway - some of it all the way back to the Magna Carta.

Dave, I for one would argue that the incursion of terrorists into the USA is not an invasion. Are you serious or just winding up Pablo again?

I don't think it is either, Chris. Just tweaking Pablito. It's so hard to resist.

But of course, I didn't even mention the invasion of brown skinned subhumans over our southern border who come to rape our women and steal our jobs.

Dave

...And we're gonna take back Aztlan, too!

The Magna Carta was a truly wonderful document, even though most of it was eventually repealed or amended:

The repeal of clause 26 in 1829 [2] was the first time a clause of Magna Carta was repealed. With the document's perceived protected status broken, in 150 years nearly the whole charter was repealed, leaving just Clauses 1, 9, and 29 still in force after 1969. Most of it was repealed in England and Wales by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863, and in Ireland by the Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872.[1]