ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, December 28, 2012

More fun with Twitter

This exchange resulted from my tweet in response to Piers Morgan's statement concerning his view of the constitutionality of Congressional arms bans.

voxday: Yes, Piers, wanting America to ban assault weapons & high-capacity magazines is ‘anti-constitutional’. #GunControlNow #AdiosPiersMorgan

DonaldJChump: So is trying to punish somebody who is using his/her right to free speech, more so even #hypocrisy

voxday: He's not an American. He's British. He has no right to free speech or any other freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

DonaldJChump: So free speech is a right reserved only for Americans? And we wonder why the rest of the world us as ignorant

voxday: Do you believe Piers Morgan has the right to vote, bear arms, or run for the Senate? Do you think the UK has free speech?

DonaldJChump: Rights are imaginary, as the internment camps & that petition prove. Cause of Americans like you they are privileges & nothing more

voxday: If rights are imaginary, then why are you appealing to them? Your argument is totally incoherent.

DonaldJChump: more incoherent than the petition. It's fighting for a right while while taking another one, showing that rights aren't rights

voxday: You're still missing the point. The British don't have US Constitution-guaranteed rights. Neither do the Chinese.

Labels:

170 Comments:

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 4:16 AM  

VD: I have to say I think you're mistaken on this one, at least in light of classical American political theory.

Not everyone in the world accepts our theory of governance, but we do, and for the record, this is our theory:

There is a distinction to be made between natural or God-given rights, which are prior and come to us from our Creator (or if you're an atheist, by virtue of being human). These are not the same type of right as our legal or civic rights, which are in fact conferred on us by our laws.

Our natural rights are not granted by the government or by the Constitution; they come from God (or if you like, they are natural rights or human rights; in any event, the point is that they are prior to government).

The right to free speech or the right to freedom of religion is a human right, which all human beings possess, everywhere and always; it is only that certain governments and not others have taken the necessary steps to secure them. If I insult a Pakistani in Britain, or attend a clandestine Mass in Saudi Arabia, I may be arrested and punished by their temporal powers; but it will always be the case, n'importe quoi, that I have a right to do so. It is simply that these evil tyrants have refused to acknowledge my right.

Piers Morgan may not be an American nor a US citizen (he's not, apparently, he's just here on a work visa) but that does not mean, as a non-American, that he has no right to free speech. He has that right wherever he goes, a priori; he has it in Saudi Arabia, even. It is simply that we recognize and secure his right, and the Saudis do not. So long as he lives under the American roof, his prior right is secured by our foresight and vigilance. It is simply that nations like Britain or Saudi Arabia lack or refuse this foresight and vigilance.

The right to run for the Senate or to vote in our elections is not a God-given or natural or human right. It is a civic or civil right, conferred on citizens alone as a matter of orderly procedure in determining who may govern in the United States. It's a legal right, not a natural one. It does derive from the Constitution. Its writ is not universal, as a natural right is; its writ is only valid in America.

Good work, however, in confronting these clowns.

Anonymous VD December 28, 2012 4:36 AM  

Piers Morgan may not be an American nor a US citizen (he's not, apparently, he's just here on a work visa) but that does not mean, as a non-American, that he has no right to free speech. He has that right wherever he goes, a priori; he has it in Saudi Arabia, even. It is simply that we recognize and secure his right, and the Saudis do not.

Irrelevant. You've omitted the entire context of the post. As a British subject, he can be deported for any reason at any time and he has no civic or God-given right to residence in the USA. The Constitution does not claim to secure God-given rights for everyone on the planet, only for We the People.

Piers Morgan is not one of the People. And an executive branch decision to deport him for his anti-Constitutional speech is not the equivalent of Congress passing a law restricting the free speech of the citizenry. If the US government can deport foreign ambassadors in response to the speech and actions of other foreigners, it can legally deport Morgan in response to his own speech.

Would you similarly argue that Morgan could not be deported if he urged the bombing of the U.S. Capital and every NFL stadium around the country on the air? Or if he read out classified military secrets?

Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 4:38 AM  

Piers Morgan is clearly an idiot, regardless of the fact he comes from a land once known for a modicum of intelligence.

He is free to speak his mind, or what there is of his mind.

And he is doing Americans a great favor in displaying his absolute ignorance. We should be thanking him for volunteering to be such a fool.

jb

Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 4:52 AM  

As an aside . . .

"Chump" chose his name moniker well.

jb

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 5:18 AM  

"As a British subject, he can be deported for any reason at any time and he has no civic or God-given right to residence in the USA."

I don't know what the law is on deportation. You are correct that he has no priorright to live in the US, but it has been granted him for the nonce, obviously in error, and yet there it is, and now we are obliged to follow the laws about it.

I read the Mark Steyn bit where he tore into Piers, and the understanding I had from it was this: foreign immigrants swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so if Morgan denied the validity of the Second Amendment, then he would indeed be eligible for deportation. But apparently he is only a green-card holder, and took no oath, so that rule does not apply. As I say I don't know what the other technical grounds would be for deporting him. One less asshole would make this a slightly better country, but we're not supposed to abuse the laws to massage our preferences: that job is already taken by the Left. My concern is with the theory and practice of rights, not with the status of a homunculus Brittaniculus (more properly, Brittaniculus hystrio).

"The Constitution does not claim to secure God-given rights for everyone on the planet, only for We the People."

Not everyone on the planet, just the people under our roof. For instance, foreign criminals are granted trial by jury, are they not?

"an executive branch decision to deport him for his anti-Constitutional speech is not the equivalent of Congress passing a law restricting the free speech of the citizenry."

That isn't what I claimed. What I claimed is that while he is here, he enjoys the fruits of our wisdom and our courage, since our belief is that it is a God-given right, not an America-given right.

"If the US government can deport foreign ambassadors in response to the speech and actions of other foreigners"

Politics and the national interest come into play in this regard, and we have something more akin to droit d'etat than to personal rights, whether natural or civic. It's a different kettle of fish.

"Would you similarly argue that Morgan could not be deported if he urged the bombing of the U.S. Capital and every NFL stadium around the country on the air?"

That is incitement, and under certain circumstances it's a crime. It is not speaking the truth according to one's conscience. I don't know the relevant law about such a circumstance, but it strays from the notion of principle.

"Or if he read out classified military secrets?"

That's a sticky one. The classical John Peter Zenger defense of the free press is, It can't be a crime, so long as it's true. And classified military secrets are presumed to be true. But then again, Zenger was accused of lese-majeste, a crime which all Americans find inherently preposterous, and not of espionage, which is in essence what revealing military secrets is. Perhaps it comes under the "aid and comfort" clause of the definition of treason. Morgan is not a US citizen, but in the Constitutional definition of treason, I don't believe citizenship status is mentioned, so it may not matter. He'd have been here under our roof, enjoying our trust, so that may be sufficient on that score. I don't know what the law is here, but I assume that the publishers of The Pentagon Papers were not sent to jail. Perhaps I am wrong on that, would have to check.

But I reckon if he has not broken an oath, then he is not liable to deportation on a whim because he insulted the Constitution, that strikes me as egregious use of power based on opinion. It would be like prosecuting someone for insulting the Koran, for instance.






Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 5:26 AM  

When we have senators and congressmen uttering far worse than the simplistic blatherings of Piers Morgan. it seems a bit contrived to even bother talking about the man. He wishes to reduce himself to the former tabloid reporter he once was in Britain.

He obviously has adopted the Chris Matthews model and is running with it.

SNL cannot reproduce greater hilarity.

Why Morgan is an issue to anyone is a mystery to me.

jb

Anonymous OCS December 28, 2012 5:33 AM  

more incoherent than the petition. It's fighting for a right while while taking another one, showing that rights aren't rights

Wow...just...brain...not...

Anonymous Shutup, Tad December 28, 2012 5:34 AM  

it seems a bit contrived to even bother talking about the man. He wishes to reduce himself to the former tabloid reporter he once was in Britain.

Piers Morgan the man is not the issue, of course, but the humorous aspect of it all is highlighted by the counter-petition from the UK wanting to keep him out of Britain. The petitioners are happy to be shed of him.

Anonymous Velma December 28, 2012 5:38 AM  

scoobius. I just wouldn't try to get snicks, here.

Anonymous zen0 December 28, 2012 5:38 AM  

That isn't what I claimed. What I claimed is that while he is here, he enjoys the fruits of our wisdom and our courage, since our belief is that it is a God-given right, not an America-given right.

For the sake of argument, scoobius, does he retain these rights if he desires to infringe on the rights of others?

For instance:

An Offender's Just Punishment

9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government.

Anonymous VD December 28, 2012 5:42 AM  

Politics and the national interest come into play in this regard, and we have something more akin to droit d'etat than to personal rights, whether natural or civic. It's a different kettle of fish.

How can you reasonably claim that politics and the national interest don't come into play when Morgan is utilizing the public airwaves to attack the very basis deemed necessary for the security of a free state?

You can't claim a government-protected God-given right for foreign residents and then hedge it about. To consider the matter at its most basic, he is a guest, but he is a very badly behaved guest and thereby merits being encouraged to leave.

I'm not saying he should be prosecuted or punished in any way. Merely that he has abused his hospitality and it should therefore be withdrawn from him. To claim he has a God-given right to abuse the American people's hospitality strikes me as absurd.

Anonymous Clay December 28, 2012 5:47 AM  

BTW. Who is Piers what-his felchers girlfriend's name?

Think about it.

If you can't name her, he's a Homo.

Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 5:49 AM  

C'mon . . .

Morgan is an idiot journalist spouting off. Nothing more. He is a tabloid journalist hired by the TV version of tabloid journalism, stressing himself out to the best of his abilities. Anyone disturbed by such an idiot on a minor cable channel has issues of their own.

No Rush fan (he's a tad liberal in the modern sense for my tastes), but he once said that we need to keep such dinosaurs around to keep us mindful of the idiocy we once pursued.

That a total idiot like Morgan is so news-worthy is so very - un-news-worthy. We should be thankful to CNN and Morgan that they are so willing to parade his idiocy so obviously. The leftist idiots wish the man would shut up.

Just keep letting out the length of rope.

jb

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 6:12 AM  

"How can you reasonably claim that politics and the national interest don't come into play when Morgan is utilizing the public airwaves to attack the very basis deemed necessary for the security of a free state?"

Using the airwaves to attack the security of a free state is not the same thing as actively undermining the security of a free state. It's debate, whether conducted with grace and intelligece or not. (I find Britons to be the world's worst debaters precisely because they are led to believe they are the world's best debaters. I use it against them constantly, to much amusement.) In my view, Piers Morgan makes such an undignified and thoughtless fool of himself, that he performs a public service by showing the true character of the arguments on his team. His petulantly shaking his head "No" like a little boy while his guest was speaking, made his guest's case for him. It was priceless.

Making mistakes and missteps, and being corrected, is the very essence of free discourse, and one of the principal reasons we cherish it. We don't just reserve the right to say whatever the heck pops into our heads because it tickles us (though that too is protected). The Framers were serious men. They understood that debate must not be circumscribed for reasons of personal opinion, or else the Truth could never be arrived at.

Let the Fool speak. He disappears unexplained after Act Three anyway. (in Lear at least.)

"he is a guest, but he is a very badly behaved guest and thereby merits being encouraged to leave."

The United States is not a dinner party which has gone on too late. (As an aside, I was once a dinner guest at a rather high-toned affair where I insisted on saying political truths that many other guests found offensive, despite their being true. I was encouraged to leave at once, BY THE OTHER GUESTS. I demurred, since the host, who was a friend of mine, owned the place, not them. Eventually the host twigged what was going on, and loudly berated the others for trying to shut me down. He made it a point that I should be the very last to leave.)

I think that by permitting this odious homunculus to stay, we show the superiority of our grace, our wisdom, and the rightness of our position. We make a better fool of him by showing patience. We seem petulant and small if we boot him simply for saying things we don't like, even if we have the technical legal right, and as I say I'm not even sure of that.

David Gregory, on the other hand, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, for completely different reasons.




Blogger Nate December 28, 2012 6:18 AM  

Vox

Rights don't come from the Constitution... nor are they limited to American Citizens.

Rights come from Almighty God. Changing the Constitution doesn't eliminate the right. It merely reduces the accuracy of the document as a reflection of those rights handed down by Him.

As such... yes... the Chinese DO have rights. Their government refuses to acknowledge them.

I very much believe an english visitor to the US has a right to defend himself with a firearm, just as much as an american does.

Anonymous VD December 28, 2012 6:28 AM  

<Rights come from Almighty God. Changing the Constitution doesn't eliminate the right. It merely reduces the accuracy of the document as a reflection of those rights handed down by Him.

Of course. But the Constitution doesn't guarantee those rights to every human and animal on the planet. It guarantees them for We the People. That is my point. Piers Morgan, not being of the People, cannot appeal to the Constitution as a guarantee of his rights. And being a British subject rather than an American citizen, he can be legally deported at any time for any reason, including his verbal assault on American liberties.

Anonymous Clay December 28, 2012 7:03 AM  

I'm there with you.

Anonymous zen0 December 28, 2012 7:06 AM  

I very much believe an english visitor to the US has a right to defend himself with a firearm, just as much as an american does. @ Nate

Does he still retain that right if he denies you have a right to defend YOURSELF with a firearm?

Anonymous Logan December 28, 2012 7:07 AM  

"Rights are imaginary, as the internment camps & that petition prove."

They "prove" nothing of the sort. I remember hearing George Carlin make a similar remark. Just because a person or group of persons act as though a right doesn't exist doesn't entail that that right doesn't exist. Not that difficult a concept, I would've thought.

Anonymous Clay December 28, 2012 7:07 AM  

Shit. You're both right, in your own stupid way.

Anonymous DJF December 28, 2012 7:16 AM  

You are forgetting a right that came prior to the Constitution, one that was created in the Revolution. That is the right to kick out of the USA any British twit who thinks they should have a say on what happens in the USA.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 7:16 AM  

"Does he [a foreigner] still retain that right if he denies you have a right to defend YOURSELF with a firearm?"

It depends on whether he has power over you or not. If he doesn't (and he shouldn't), and he merely SAYS it, then he's just speaking his mind, and so then who cares? Especially when an Englishman speaks his mind, which event is generally of no consequence.

If he somehow usurps power over you and actively denies (or really prevents) your right with force, then of course, being an American, you do what any American would naturally do: you shoot him.

Especially, of course, an Englishman.

Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 7:23 AM  

Very useful, indeed.
N5

Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 7:26 AM  

Again - c'mon . . .

Vox - rights exist a priori. That our Constitution, worthless as it has become, recognizes "rights" is the same as recognizing human breathe air.

Morgan is a twit, as the Brits like to say of a fool. I say let him ramble on - he seems intent on his own self-destruction as a credible newsman. His call.

To paraphrase Scripture: "The idiots you shall always have among you."

Piers Morgan is CNN's version of Michael Moore.

Easily ignored.

jb

Blogger Leni Dog December 28, 2012 7:28 AM  

Or Hessian.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 28, 2012 7:31 AM  

Fantastic!

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 7:35 AM  

"But the Constitution doesn't guarantee those rights to every human and animal on the planet. It guarantees them for We the People."

Yes. But, to be clear, we're not talking about everyone on the planet. What I'm saying is, we implicitly recognize certain rights for everyone on the planet, at the same time that we also recognize we are not capable of securing them (and, pace Lawrence Auster, and contra the neo-cons and the thrice-accursed George W. Bush, we are _not_ OBLIGED to secure them) for anyone except ourselves.

However, that being so, if we say we are a land in which these rights are both acknowledged and secured, then I can't see how we could refuse that security to foreigners legally residing under our roof, without tacitly admitting that they aren't God-given and natural, but merely our own prefereces. Again, the appeal is to the history of classical American political thought, not to the facts on the ground.

The big problem with natural-rights theory is of course that no one has ever drawn up a list of which exact rights are explicitly natural (Jefferson merely says "that AMONG these rights are...") which everyone can agree to. Some people think that free housing and health-care are natural rights; some people think that the right of mestizos to break into our country and shit out dozens of greasy anchor-babies is a natural right; others say no. The general test is the division between negative and positive rights, with the more reasonable people agreeing that positive rights are not natural rights, but rather civic ones, meaning arbitrarily decided ones. But the debate grinds on.

"being a British subject rather than an American citizen, he can be legally deported at any time for any reason"

This may be technically true, I don't know what the law says on the matter. My major point is simply that, according to the theory by which our whole way of life is predicated, we must take care not to conflate natural rights and legal/Constitutional rights, as they derive from different metaphysical sources. Much mischief has come from this confusion, especially from rat's nests like the National Council for La Raza.

Anonymous VD December 28, 2012 7:40 AM  

However, that being so, if we say we are a land in which these rights are both acknowledged and secured, then I can't see how we could refuse that security to foreigners legally residing under our roof, without tacitly admitting that they aren't God-given and natural, but merely our own prefereces.

Of course we can. In fact, we encourage them to stand up for those rights in their native lands by drawing a firm line between the American enjoyment of those natural rights and their inability to do so.

Want to exercise your rights? Become an American or force your own government to recognize them as well. They shouldn't be permitted to play American as if it were a simple tourist activity.

Anonymous Roundtine December 28, 2012 7:41 AM  

I view it this way: Morgan enjoys the rights of the Constitution, but he doesn't enjoy a right to stay. He can be deported. Same with foreign Muslim clerics who attack the U.S. on U.S. soil, they should be deported. Reverend Wright is an American, he can slam the U.S. as he pleases and not face deportation.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 7:46 AM  

"Want to exercise your rights? Become an American or force your own government"

Please, oh for God's sake please! Whatever we do, let's not encourage any more foreigners to want to become Americans!!

Piteous Christ, haven't we had enough?!?



Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 7:55 AM  

Scubious -

Despite your many words, you seem more inclined to be here to prove Vox wrong than you are to prove a point.

Rights are inherent - no gummint is capable of doing anything but recognizing rights, or trying to deny them. I understand Vox's appeal to the American ideal, except to say that ideal was long ago lost.

But rights exist anyway. Piers Morgan is an idiot who gets paid to utter lousy opinions, and my three eggs over easy with a cold beer and hot coffee just now were wonderful.

Anybody trying to pry those three treasures out of my hand will get shot.

jb

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 8:05 AM  

That's not how rights work. The constitution does not say that certain rights are for citizens but not non-citizens. Your logic here is the exact same as the logic employed by the neocons arguing for indefinite detention, torture, surveillance, and murder of non-citizens.

Anonymous JohnR December 28, 2012 8:08 AM  

What is all this talk of Morgan's rights?

Has the govt tried to stop his speech?

Until that happens, Morgan's free speech rights have not been violated.

Again, The Constitution spells out the rights the govt cannot infringe upon. There is no duty between individuals.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 8:21 AM  

"Despite your many words, you seem more inclined to be here to prove Vox wrong than you are to prove a point."

LACEDAEMONIANS: Seems, to who?

I'm not trying to prove a point so much as to articulate one, so that it can be understood and applied more clearly by others in the future. As Yeats famously said of Swift: "Imitate him if you dare... He served human liberty." I am astounded and shocked to observe how many of my fellow Americans are so miseducated and brainwashed (not talking about present company, natch) that they don't even really understand what their rights ARE anymore, or how they came by them. This is of course quite deliberate on the part of the leftist educational establishment.

For instance, I once came upon two college students (COLLEGE students! not high-school freshmen!) debating the merits of a sign on a campus kiosk. One of them said to the other: "I'm not sure... is this free speech, or is it hate speech?"

It took me over half an hour to explain to them that it's ALL free speech, and that "hate speech" does not exist as a category in American political theory.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 8:25 AM  

"I think that by permitting this odious homunculus to stay, we show the superiority of our grace, our wisdom, and the rightness of our position. We make a better fool of him by showing patience. We seem petulant and small if we boot him simply for saying things we don't like, even if we have the technical legal right, and as I say I'm not even sure of that."

Oh please, haven't you had enough of the idiocy of the "White Man's Burden?" Apparently not. But if you actually did try to carry such a burden you would quickly tire of it and wouldn't be spouting such nonsense.

Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 8:26 AM  

A point being missed in the discussion of the language of the Constitution is what a Constitution actually is, a founding national legal document. For the international interpretation to be corrrect, no nation should ever have a president under the age of 40, born on foreign (to that nation) soil. I'm comfortable trash-heaping that line of thinking. Whether a foreigner enjoys those rights is more debatable, but, since the majority of natural-born Americans did not enjoy the rights of citizens at the time of the founding (women and minorities), it's safe to say that those rights can be limited on American soil, in the original spirit of the Constitution.

Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 8:41 AM  

Once upon a time we ignored Michael Moore, Piers Morgan, et al. We can no longer afford to do so. They, and their ilk, with the help of a leftist media, have become the voice of america.

They shout from the roof tops while we cower in our basements. We may be armed, but there are plenty of military and police that believe as they do; witness New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Mayor Bloomberg and the city of New York provide an example of authority out of control.

There are numerous news reports listed throughout the internet showing how eager the local and federal police agencies are to prove that they can cooperate to strike fear in the american populace.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 8:50 AM  

"We may be armed, but there are plenty of military and police that believe as they do..."

This is why Americans need to get serious about secession or call the left's bluff/shit tests. One or the other, because the left will resort to increasingly levels of violence and only a force continuum by real Americans is going to cow them into compliance with the laws of the land.

Anonymous VD December 28, 2012 8:50 AM  

That's not how rights work. The constitution does not say that certain rights are for citizens but not non-citizens. Your logic here is the exact same as the logic employed by the neocons arguing for indefinite detention, torture, surveillance, and murder of non-citizens.

It's not about how rights work. The Constitution refers solely to the rights of We the People. It has absolutely nothing to say about plants, animals, or foreigners, except with regards to wars and foreign treaties.

As for neocons, you have it precisely backward. They argue that we are justified in invading foreign lands in order to act on behalf of the human rights of foreigners. Your position justifies an imperialist policy.

Anonymous Durster December 28, 2012 8:52 AM  

Just to aid in the discussion a bit, here's the wikipedia entry on deportation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation

An importaint part of the entry is:
In many cases, deportation is generally done either by the government's executive apparatus, and as such is often subject to a simpler legal process (or none), with reduced or no right to trial, legal representation or appeal due to the subject's lack of citizenship.


I've seen the discussion on weather or not non-citizens are covered by the consitution on several sites now, most of the discussion hasn't been civil or very intelligent.

My own position on it atm is fuzzy, mostly because I haven't taken the time yet to look closely at the wording and intent of the admentments. But it is obvious that the protection of rights was never intented to be universal or all encompasing. Other wise we wouldn't have needed the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments.

Anonymous Don Rickles December 28, 2012 8:52 AM  

It took me over half an hour to explain to them that it's ALL free speech, and that "hate speech" does not exist as a category in American political theory.

scoobius dubious


I guess that's ok, as long as you didn't hurt their feelings. That would be mean.

Anonymous Stilicho December 28, 2012 9:19 AM  

The right to run for the Senate or to vote in our elections is not a God-given or natural or human right. It is a civic or civil right, conferred on citizens alone as a matter of orderly procedure in determining who may govern in the United States. It's a legal right, not a natural one. It does derive from the Constitution. Its writ is not universal, as a natural right is; its writ is only valid in America.

The mere fact that the God-given right of self determination is codified piecemeal by various statutes does not transform it into a "legal" right any more than Constitutional recognition and protection of certain rights means that those rights are granted by the government to the people. You missed the forest for the trees.

Anonymous Bobby Joe Trosclair December 28, 2012 9:19 AM  

Well, Piers Morgan himself would probably argue against the concept of objective God-given rights as he has stated the Bible should be amended as well as the Constitution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjZV_6jUAFQ&feature=player_embedded

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 9:36 AM  

@Stilicho 28/12 9:19 am

Whaaaaaaaa??

I heard some sort of porridge about God and self-determination and statutes and the government and a forest or something. Needed a pat of butter and some maple syrup and cinnamon, if ya ask me.

You've got an intellectual five-car pileup there, bud. Kindly step it out at greater length, in a less lapidary style, so I can at least understand what exactly it is you're claiming.

Personal to those who find me "wordy": see, THIS is precisely why I'm wordy. To be clear, instead of vatic and mystical.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 9:39 AM  

It's not about how rights work. The Constitution refers solely to the rights of We the People. It has absolutely nothing to say about plants, animals, or foreigners, except with regards to wars and foreign treaties.

It doesn't define "we the people" as "American citizens". How are you defining "we the people"?

As for neocons, you have it precisely backward. They argue that we are justified in invading foreign lands in order to act on behalf of the human rights of foreigners. Your position justifies an imperialist policy.

You've read the neocon positions on torture, the kill list, the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention. Their argument is that such actions are constitutional because foreigners do not have the same protections under the law as citizens.

Your leap to justifying an imperialist foreign policy is a red herring. I don't give a damn what rights the camel jockeys can exercise or can't exercise in their country. But, if they are in this country, they have the protection under the constitution as someone who traces their lineage back to the first man at Jamestown.

Once you start coping away at whose rights are protected, you get into animal farm territory where some animals are more equal than others.

Anonymous CraigBoone December 28, 2012 9:51 AM  

I never understood why wanting people to shut up is suppressing their right to free speech or whatever.

They have a right to speak, the rest of us have a right to tell them to shut the fuck up.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 9:55 AM  

Should be chipping away, not coping.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1123520953.shtml

Here's a summary of current law regarding the constitutional rights of noncitizens.

They can be deported for any reason (note that I never debated that) but generally have the same criminal and civil protections as citizens do.

So, for example, the government can deport Piers Morgan (although apparently it's "unsettled" whether it can be done solely for speech, which seems to negate the whole point of giving Congress the power to deport foreigners). However, they cannot throw him in jail for doing so, or fine him.

Likewise, we couldn't legally prohibit muslims from practicing their religion, although we can deport foreign muslims.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 9:55 AM  

@Just Us --

And a hearty 'Sinn fein amhain!' to you too, me lad.

"Oh please, haven't you had enough of the idiocy of the "White Man's Burden?"

Ah, but you misunderstand me, bucko. This isn't at all about the white man's burden, which of course does not exist and never did. This is about controlling the definitions of terms. (It also happens to be about being right and not wrong, but we'll let that rest for the moment as it's a different strand of argument.)

Put it this way, laddie: if your rights are not founded on unshakeable prior principle, then what are they? They are mere privileges, table scraps, granted you by the temporal power, in reward for services rendered.

And as we sit, here, upon this bank and shoal of time (logs off, steps outside of the room, spins around three times yelling Fuck!, comes back in clean), the Left holds all the temporal power, and will for some time to come. Now if you concede that your rights are derived from the whims of power, which is to say from the whims of the Left, then where are you?

Up Schlitz creek without a paddle, me boy.

Have a think on it.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 9:56 AM  

I never understood why wanting people to shut up is suppressing their right to free speech or whatever.

It's the violence inherent in the system.

Anonymous robwbright December 28, 2012 9:58 AM  

Stephen Kinsella has an interesting take on the "We the People" issue.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella10.html

Excerpt:

"Sandefur repeats and presses the argument that the Constitution "was created" by "we the people" not by "we the states." But what about my previous point that, if a state such as Rhode Island had not ratified, then the new US could not force them to join? Sandefur seems to admit this is true (he quotes Madison to this effect), "[b]ut this does not contradict the fact that where the Constitution was ratified, the people of the United States become one people for particular purposes — that the Constitution was ratified by the people and not by the states."

Hunh? What the heck does this mean? How, exactly, is it that "the people" "ratified" the Constitution? This kind of reasoning heavily relies on "social contract" type legal fictions. Consider the implications of what Sandefur is claiming: If the so-called "representatives" from 13 states arrive at a convention, hammer out a document beginning "We the states agree to the following" and the state governments then ratify this document, then it's a compact "among the states." But, see, if these same representatives convene and forge a document beginning, "We the people of the states agree to the following" — and the states duly ratify, then it's now some kind of irrevocable agreement "among the people"?

How, exactly? Isn't there some sleight of hand going on here? How exactly did these government employees cause "we the people" to irrevocably bind ourselves to anything? Just because the representatives arrogate to themselves the right to decide for their neighbors?"

It certainly cannot be denied that "the people" as a whole did not, in fact, create or ratify the Constitution.

On the other hand, Patrick Henry believed that the Preamble meant the people in general and he complained about it:

"I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me
leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political
curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads
me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people,
instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a
confederation. . . . I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who
formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express
some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion,
put the utmost confidence in them – a confidence which was well placed;
and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully
confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I
would demand the cause of their conduct. . . . The people gave them no
power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear."

Still, neither resolves the issue of whether the persons referred to in "We the people" in the Preamble is equivalent to "the people" in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments and "person" in the 5th Amendment.

It appears to me that the Founders intended the criminal law protections to apply to more than just the citizens of the country. If my belief is accurate, then either (1) Josh is correct; or (2) the Founders intended different meanings in different places when they used the terms "people" and "person".

Anonymous Stilicho December 28, 2012 9:58 AM  

You've got an intellectual five-car pileup there, bud. Kindly step it out at greater length, in a less lapidary style, so I can at least understand what exactly it is you're claiming.

Your failure to understand that self determination is one of what you termed "God-given" or "natural" rights is the root of your erroneous classification of voting rights, etc. as "legal" (i.e. gov't granted) rights. They are not. They simply set out the process by which we usually exercise our God-given right of self determination. Your error is similar to saying that property rights are gov't granted rights because we have statutes that protect property ownership.

Anonymous Susan December 28, 2012 10:04 AM  

Observing Piers Morgan is like watching a real time enactment of the Monty Python sketch 'Twit of the Year'.

And VD is right. Constitutional rights are for We the People. Any of you thinking otherwise, that our rights are for everybody, go to Mexico and try some of the arguments that have been presented here by Josh, etc. You will find yourself in jail or deported so fast it will make your heads spin. We the People should mean something. It is really sad that it doesn't anymore.

Unfortunately, the way that libs, by way of the ACLU, have screwed up our legal system to such a point that if the inmates of Gitmo were ever transferred to prisons here in the US, they would be assured of being tried under our civilian legal system, instead of the military one which is much more harsh.

And given that Britain has an invented State Religion, thanks to Henry VIII, it doesn't surprise me to hear Morgan waxing ignorantly on the subject of the Bible. Heard the cast of Monty Python once on the subject. British citizens don't like the Bible.

Anonymous paradox December 28, 2012 10:05 AM  

The same rights that apply to citizens should apply to foreigners. Otherwise you will have a federal government just itching to strip the citizenship from political dissidents (i.e. gunowners) and subjecting them to indefinite imprisonment, no due process, and possible torture. All justified because foreigners can be treated differently.

Deport Morgan but don't give the feds another tool for tyranny.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 10:10 AM  

Exactly, paradox

Anonymous NZT December 28, 2012 10:12 AM  

It doesn't define "we the people" as "American citizens". How are you defining "we the people"?

It says "We the People of the United States", i.e. American Citizens

You've read the neocon positions on torture, the kill list, the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention. Their argument is that such actions are constitutional because foreigners do not have the same protections under the law as citizens.

It's perfectly true that foreigners don't have the same protections under the law as citizens. There are other reasonable objections to those methods without claiming that Constitutional rights apply to foreigners: to prevent reprisals against American POW's, to preserve the moral high ground, the dubiousness of intelligence acquired through torture, etc. More to the point, the neocons justify bombing and invading foreign countries by claiming their dictators are violating the people's rights, which even if true doesn't mean it's America's job to solve the problem.

Anonymous Stilicho December 28, 2012 10:14 AM  

I never understood why wanting people to shut up is suppressing their right to free speech or whatever.

It's the violence inherent in the system.

Listen, strange women sittin' in the Senate sponsorin' gun control laws is no basis for the security of a free state. Fundamental rights derive from a Creator, not from some farcical gub'mint ceremony.

You can't expect to remain safe just because some watery-eyed tart threw a bill at you.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 10:15 AM  

Unfortunately, the way that libs, by way of the ACLU, have screwed up our legal system to such a point that if the inmates of Gitmo were ever transferred to prisons here in the US, they would be assured of being tried under our civilian legal system, instead of the military one which is much more harsh.

As they should be, given that we are not at war. Unless you're also prepared for internal dissidents to be rounded up and sent to gitmo.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 10:20 AM  

More to the point, the neocons justify bombing and invading foreign countries by claiming their dictators are violating the people's rights, which even if true doesn't mean it's America's job to solve the problem.

That's how they sell it to under public, sure, but the real reason they support invading other countries is because it's apparently in the best interests of Israel for the united states to do so.

And of course it's not our job to make sure everyone around the world has their rights unviolated. It is our job to make sure that our government does not violate those rights within its jurisdiction.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 10:21 AM  

You can't expect to remain safe just because some watery-eyed tart threw a bill at you.

I didn't vote for her.

Anonymous Tad December 28, 2012 10:29 AM  

@Vox Day

How can you reasonably claim that politics and the national interest don't come into play when Morgan is utilizing the public airwaves to attack the very basis deemed necessary for the security of a free state?

Foreigners in America are indeed subject to the protection of the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection rights as well as most other constitutional provisions. This has been understood since the beginning of 19th century.

Mr. Morgan can't vote. He can't hold office. But, he can engage in whatever poltical speech he desires while in the U.S. without any fear of deportation.

It's a long established principle.

Anonymous Kickass December 28, 2012 10:33 AM  

Truly Vox is here for such a time as this.

Anonymous Noah B. December 28, 2012 10:36 AM  

"Of course. But the Constitution doesn't guarantee those rights to every human and animal on the planet. It guarantees them for We the People. That is my point. Piers Morgan, not being of the People, cannot appeal to the Constitution as a guarantee of his rights."

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, but this is hardly the first thing they've screwed up. Why the court would hold that foreigners have first and fourth amendment rights, but not second amendment rights, is simply illogical. It seems obvious and necessary that "We The People" refers only to the citizens of the nation.

"It's a long established principle."

STFU Tad.

Anonymous Tad December 28, 2012 10:39 AM  

@Vox Day

It's not about how rights work. The Constitution refers solely to the rights of We the People

Actually, the Constitution does NOT refer solely to "We the People". It refers to "the People" and it refers to "Citizens" in different contexts.

For examples, it's quite clear in the Constitution that "Citizens" is used in the context of voting, holding office, judicial jurisdiction, and Privileges and immunities.

"The People" is referred to only twice i the Constitution. 1) in the Preamble and in article 1, section two concerning the composition of the Congress.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 10:43 AM  

"I think that by permitting this odious homunculus to stay, we show the superiority of our grace, our wisdom, and the rightness of our position. We make a better fool of him by showing patience. We seem petulant and small if we boot him simply for saying things we don't like, even if we have the technical legal right, and as I say I'm not even sure of that."

No scoobius I addressed this condescending sentimentality that means nothing to the invaders nor will mean nothing to them 50 years from now sure some of them will be influenced by your grace,wisdom,patience etc... as human beings influence each other but as Vox has pointed out numerous times culture will trump all such "influences" and you'll be left standing in an crime infested ethnic ghetto despite your sentimentalities.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 10:43 AM  

"Your failure to understand that self determination is one of what you termed "God-given" or "natural" rights is the root of your erroneous classification of voting rights, etc. as "legal" (i.e. gov't granted) rights."

It is not axiomatic that the principle of "one man, one vote" is the singular and only way for a people to achieve or express the right of self-determination. It's just the way we happen to do it, or rather, have thought best to do it, for the past while or so.

And so now you've had your first big lesson here in Sumo Academy.

Sit down, take a breath, wipe the sand off your face, have a cup of sake. It's nice this time of year, innit?

Tad: "he can engage in whatever political speech he desires while in the U.S. without any fear of deportation. It's a long established principle."

Holy shit, I agree with Tad.

Somebody shoot me now.

Anonymous Tad December 28, 2012 10:51 AM  

@Vox Day

First, it's never a good idea to expect substance in a twitter exchange.

Second, you got two things perfectly wrong in your exchange:

1: "Yes, Piers, wanting America to ban assault weapons & high-capacity magazines is ‘anti-constitutional’

I can't even be sure what you mean by "anti-constitutional". However, it's not unconstitutional to advocate for passage of a law. Nor is an assault weapons by unconstitutional. And even if it were, suggesting it be passed isn't unconstitutional. It's speech.

2: "He has no right to free speech or any other freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Sure he does. He has rights to free speech, free press, assembly, due process, equal protection, etc, etc.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 10:52 AM  

Tad: "he can engage in whatever political speech he desires while in the U.S. without any fear of deportation. It's a long established principle."

The U.S. has had Sedition Acts at various times, the UK too. There is no way in hell a foreigner with a green card should be allowed to attack the 2nd Amendment. No wonder bama sits in the WH.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 10:54 AM  

@Sinn Fein Amhain (a/k/a Just Us):

"you'll be left standing in a crime infested ethnic ghetto despite your sentimentalities."

Again, you oversimplify my position. Trust me, I'm much more "racist" than you. One of my essential and non-negotiable principles is that Scale Matters. Which would very much agree with your concerns.

And what you are talking about here, is a matter of scale in the real world (which always applies), not abstract principle (which sometimes does not). The two are symbiotic, and of a purpose must be, for the precise reasons which you delineate. Or rather, which you and I delineate in turn.

I think Jon Anderson had some hilarious semi-coherent blather to say about this...

"And you and I climb clearer towards the movement,
And you and I called over valleys of endless seas."

But I get what you're saying. I don't think our positions are necessarily at loggerheads.



Anonymous DonReynolds December 28, 2012 10:55 AM  

Thank you, Vox. I have been arguing against people who think our God-given rights, protected by the Constitution, apply to anyone else in the world. In fact, American rights are guaranteed to citizens of the USA and do not extend beyond the jurisdiction of the US. In addition, foreign citizens in the USA, legally or illegally, have none of the rights of citizens.

When German saboteurs were landed by submarine in Florida during WWII, they were quickly captured. No one suggested they be afforded treatment under the Geneva Convention nor did anyone suggest they be tried in criminal courts for just punishment. They were simply executed after they were captured.

We will never know what the US Army had in mind for Pancho Villa back in 1917 when they tried to capture him. Villa had ordered 100 of his followers to burn Columbus, New Mexico, to the ground (and robbed the bank) in 1916 and attack a detachment of the 13th Cavalry there, stealing a hundred horses and supplies. (Villa was not present during the raid.) I doubt the US Army thought he had any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 10:59 AM  

"But I get what you're saying. I don't think our positions are necessarily at loggerheads."

Agree but "A little leaven leavens the whole lump". Galatians 5:9

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:00 AM  

Holy shit, I agree with Tad.Somebody shoot me now.

I am as uncomfortable with this as you seem to be.

It might almost be enough to cause me to reevaluate my position...almost.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:02 AM  

In addition, foreign citizens in the USA, legally or illegally, have none of the rights of citizens.

Sweet, it's open season to shoot, rape, and plunder foreigners.

Imma get me some sweet underage latina ass...

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 28, 2012 11:04 AM  

It becomes clearer by the day that you all, without exception, require a guardian.

Does not this First Amendment specify that Congress shall make no law?

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:04 AM  

When German saboteurs were landed by submarine in Florida during WWII, they were quickly captured. No one suggested they be afforded treatment under the Geneva Convention nor did anyone suggest they be tried in criminal courts for just punishment. They were simply executed after they were captured.

That's because:

1) we were at war

2) they were spies and subject to immediate death per the Geneva convention and the rules of war

Those two factors do not apply today.

Anonymous Durster December 28, 2012 11:06 AM  

@ Josh

Except that those things would still be illegal under the law. Just because the constitution would not apply to them, dose not mean that the established laws do not.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 28, 2012 11:07 AM  

I think Vox and Scoob are about half right.

Scoob is right because foreigners here are afforded most of the same protections we are, and I think it is an amendment by amendment case. Certainly, the legal/judicial amendments regarding crime and punishment protect foreigners. Tourists here don't have to worry about being whipped in public or to be executed summarily by police officers (in theory), they know they will get a trial, jury, etc..Where they don't enjoy rights are the 2nd, 9th and 10th and ascending, which deal with specific rights of US Citizens.

Vox is dead on when he says Morgan can say whatever he wants, but then we can deport him for what he says, or any other reason. We could deport him for stiffing a waitress at a restaurant. He is here at our pleasure, and he can leave the same way. He has no right to be here or work in this country.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:07 AM  

Does not this First Amendment specify that Congress shall make no law?

See, this is as far as the amendments should have gone.

Of course, apparently according to others here, some animals more equal than others...

Anonymous DonReynolds December 28, 2012 11:09 AM  

Piers Morgan needs to go back to the UK and try to engage in prohibited speech in his own country and see how quickly the police show up to arrest him. Even Americans can be arrested there for speaking aloud on the forbidden topics, which includes any hint of racism or homophobia.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 11:10 AM  

"In addition, foreign citizens in the USA, legally or illegally, have none of the rights of citizens."

The capitulation to foreigners appears to fall along generational lines. I prefer the nativist old school interpretation.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:10 AM  

Except that those things would still be illegal under the law. Just because the constitution would not apply to them, dose not mean that the established laws do not.

Obviously those established laws preventing me from going on a dothraki spree through the local Mexican slums are unconstitutional,fbecause foreigners have no rights.

Anonymous Noah B. December 28, 2012 11:10 AM  

This isn't to say that foreigners do not have the same God-given rights as Americans, only that the US Constitution does not restrain our government, or any other government, from infringing upon those rights.

And how could it? The entire notion of war is a recognition of the fact that foreigners have no protection under the Constitution.

Those who hold that the Constitution protects the rights of foreigners need to explain why the Constitution allows the government to wage war against those foreigners who it supposedly protects.

Anonymous Tad December 28, 2012 11:11 AM  

@Just Us

The U.S. has had Sedition Acts at various times, the UK too. There is no way in hell a foreigner with a green card should be allowed to attack the 2nd Amendment. No wonder bama sits in the WH.

Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe they should. They fact is, they can and they can with Constitutional protection. And by the way, the Alien and Sedition acts were passed for purely partisan reasons. Federalists just didn't like the way Republicans were talking about them.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:11 AM  

The capitulation to foreigners appears to fall along generational lines. I prefer the nativist old school interpretation.

Which is what, exactly?

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 28, 2012 11:11 AM  

When German saboteurs were landed by submarine in Florida during WWII, they were quickly captured. No one suggested they be afforded treatment under the Geneva Convention nor did anyone suggest they be tried in criminal courts for just punishment. They were simply executed after they were captured.,

That's because:

1) we were at war

2) they were spies and subject to immediate death per the Geneva convention and the rules of war

Those two factors do not apply today.


Josh is exactly right. A proper declaration of war allows us to do things like execute German spies. The problem with what we are doing today is we are not at war, and we are trying to mix wartime actions (fighting, invading) with peacetime actions (arrest and trial) against people we are fighting. Read this article by Stewart Rhodes on the problem of the enemy combatant. He won an award for this paper at Yale Law School. He is the founder of Oath Keepers.

http://jpfo.org/pdf/sr-enemy.pdf

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 11:12 AM  

"Does not this First Amendment specify that Congress shall make no law?"

I believe we have a thread winner.

I larfed and larfed.


Anonymous Tad December 28, 2012 11:13 AM  

@Josh

In addition, foreign citizens in the USA, legally or illegally, have none of the rights of citizens.

Sweet, it's open season to shoot, rape, and plunder foreigners.


Bingo!!

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 11:14 AM  

"Which is what, exactly?"

Read Mr.Reynolds post.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 11:15 AM  

"The problem with what we are doing today is we are not at war".

We aren't?!

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:16 AM  

Those who hold that the Constitution protects the rights of foreigners need to explain why the Constitution allows the government to wage war against those foreigners who it supposedly protects.

Several things. Primarily jurisdiction and whether or not a state of war exists between that country and the united states.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 28, 2012 11:16 AM  

In addition, foreign citizens in the USA, legally or illegally, have none of the rights of citizens.

Josh...."Sweet, it's open season to shoot, rape, and plunder foreigners.

"Imma get me some sweet underage latina ass..."

Josh....assuming that you are a US citizen, they would read YOU your rights after you are arrested. YOU are still subject to the laws of the state and the United States. But, be my guest....that sweet ass is wildly overrated, by the way, and they will never stop talking.

Anonymous Noah B. December 28, 2012 11:16 AM  

"Obviously those established laws preventing me from going on a dothraki spree through the local Mexican slums are unconstitutional,fbecause foreigners have no rights."

I checked first, and I didn't see any laws about that.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 11:18 AM  

"Sweet, it's open season to shoot, rape, and plunder foreigners.

Bingo!!"

With your outlook don't be surprised when said foreigners start initiating such activities toward you in your own country. But of course you will be surprised.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:19 AM  

We aren't?!

No, there has not been a congressional declaration of war.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 28, 2012 11:20 AM  

@ just us

"The problem with what we are doing today is we are not at war".

We aren't?!


Show me the Constitutional declaration of war against Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq, someone. That is what I am referring to, just us. We have not declared war against anyone.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 28, 2012 11:21 AM  

Josh, your thoughts are eerily similar to mine. You need to stop that.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:22 AM  

But, be my guest....that sweet ass is wildly overrated, by the way, and they will never stop talking.

I was planning on either imprisoning or killing them post rape. Of course I might permit one to stay alive if she can make particularly tasty guacamole and burritos.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 11:22 AM  

"But, be my guest....that sweet ass is wildly overrated, by the way..."

No kidding, nothing like being a white patsy/beast of burden for some controlling gold digging brown putang. Ask all the white guys who married nigger chinks ie... Philippino's how that worked out.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 28, 2012 11:23 AM  

I believe we have a thread winner.

I larfed and larfed.


Truly, it is to laugh. Small wonder your shining city burns around you; you pick at nits and argue over jots and tittles. Have men rights or have they not--and if so, what import has the Constitution save as a declaration that your government has not the power to infringe them, except they be forfeited?

Though an "undocumented resident", I still retain the right to bid you all kneel, you know.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:25 AM  

Josh, your thoughts are eerily similar to mine. You need to stop that.

More disturbing is that we're both taking sides with scoobius and tad.

I'm not nearly fortified with enough bourbon today to deal with that.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 11:25 AM  

"Show me the Constitutional declaration of war against Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq, someone. That is what I am referring to, just us. We have not declared war against anyone."

My bad, meant "State of Emergency". Though I am not sure what the difference is.

Anonymous Noah B. December 28, 2012 11:25 AM  

@Josh

It has been argued that the Congressional resolutions allowing the use of force against Al Qaeda and Iraq were actually declarations of war, since they did explicitly authorize the executive branch to use military force against foreign powers.

The Constitution is silent as to the exact wording that Congress must use in a declaration of war.

However, it does seem to be terrible public policy to declare war in such a way that doubt exists as to whether the country is at war, who the country is warring against, and what the necessary conditions for victory may be.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 11:28 AM  

"foreigners here are afforded most of the same protections we are, and I think it is an amendment by amendment case."

As usual (and I can just hear Wittgenstein sighing in Hell as we speak, or rather "speak") it's a language problem: we use one word for "rights" which actually means two or more things, and so we have to split hairs and make distinctions, which not everybody agrees to, and so it gets confusing. If we had one word for "natural rights" and another for "civic rights" and they weren't loaded with the metaphysical baggage of "rights" (which sounds to our ears like "that which is _right_" which is irrelevant) and the two words sounded completely dissimilar and had different etymologies so that there was no confusing the two, well, we'd probably still have a modicum of confusion (we're humans, it's what we do, we screw things up) but it would be a lot less than it is in this discussion, and generally speaking in legislation (yes, I know, I know).

Blogger Davidstanley December 28, 2012 11:29 AM  

Please don't send Piers Morgan back to us. We thought the annoying twit was going to stay with you for ever. He is loathed throughout Britain and was sacked for printing faked photos purporting to show brutality by British troops in Iraq.A revolting man,supremely confident in his ignorance and smugness.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 28, 2012 11:30 AM  

uh ok

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 11:34 AM  

"We have not declared war against anyone."

Yeah well talk is cheap and the U.S. is warring against nations despite any such declaration.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 11:36 AM  

"However, it does seem to be terrible public policy to declare war in such a way that doubt exists as to whether the country is at war, who the country is warring against, and what the necessary conditions for victory may be."

This is because, curses be upon the head of George W. Bush, the country is effectively at war with Islam, or rather with the Islamic Ummah -- which, like it or not, and whether we want it or not, has always been at war with us, and always will be, by its very definition; and that we are prevented from saying so plainly and publicly because of our absurd entanglements with ARAMCO in KSA, with AIPAC in USA, and with MSM (see under: AIPAC) in Shitsville, USA.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 28, 2012 11:38 AM  

Right, the real war we are engaged in is against Islam. Ask any muslim over there how they see it. We aren't allowed to say that, because then we have to talk about being Christian and being perpetually locked in war against the muslim.

Anonymous Noah B. December 28, 2012 11:39 AM  

That's pretty much it, scoob.

Anonymous Josh December 28, 2012 11:43 AM  

It has been argued that the Congressional resolutions allowing the use of force against Al Qaeda and Iraq were actually declarations of war, since they did explicitly authorize the executive branch to use military force against foreign powers.

It has been argued, yes. I'm sure that some loser or lesbian somewhere has argued that Roseanne or Rosie is more attractive than Sofia Vergara. But that doesn't make it a correct argument.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 11:47 AM  

"by its very definition; and that we are prevented from saying so plainly and publicly because of our absurd entanglements with ARAMCO in KSA, with AIPAC in USA, and with MSM (see under: AIPAC) in Shitsville, USA."

Really? "Prevented from saying". Hmmm there's that double standard in freedom of speech when it comes to the natives and foreign invaders.

Anonymous Noah B. December 28, 2012 11:58 AM  

The level of drunkenness required to support such a position is almost incomprehensible, Josh.

Nevertheless, an argument similar to yours was advanced the state of Massachusetts in 1970, i.e., that since an explicit declaration of war had not been issued, the federal government could not use wartime powers to compel individuals to serve in the military. The Supreme Court, in its infinite and unerring wisdom, declined to hear it. See Massachusetts v. Laird.

Anonymous Gen. Kong December 28, 2012 12:23 PM  

The movie Idiocracy wasn't about the future....

Anonymous DonReynolds December 28, 2012 12:24 PM  

Noah B. ....."However, it does seem to be terrible public policy to declare war in such a way that doubt exists as to whether the country is at war, who the country is warring against, and what the necessary conditions for victory may be."

The purpose of a formal declaration of war is to announce that what follows is lawful military action and not a civil crime, thus soldiers, sailors and airmen are not terrorists, or brigands, or pirates, or bandits, subject to criminal penalties by the enemy or anyone else. This is not a fine legal point. While Congress has authorized the use of force and the President has emergency war powers approved by Congress, the formal declaration is still important.....but has not been invoked since December 1941. The historical importance could be illustrated by the experience of Alexander Mcleod after the Caroline Affair.

Blogger IM2L844 December 28, 2012 12:32 PM  

Right, the real war we are engaged in is against Islam.

Yes. And what many people don't realize is that the root of the problem is that Islamists believe that Abraham's inheritance (Israel) was passed on to Ishmael (the patriarch of Islam) rather than Isaac.

Peace talks or dividing Israel will never, ever solve this fundamental disagreement between Islam and Judaic tradition (Abraham>Isaac>Jacob) subscribed to by Christianity. Islam wants it all because they believe it is their inheritance and, by hook or by crook, they mean to have it completely and forever.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 28, 2012 12:39 PM  

IML2844,

That is also a dead nuts accurate reason why muslims and Jews/Christians do not worship the same God. The Jewish and Christian scriptures say that Isaac was the promised heir, the bloodline for blessings and eventually Jesus. Islam says Ishmael was the favored one. That difference can not be reconciled. God can not change or lie, therefore the entity described in the Koran is not GOD.

Anonymous Stilicho December 28, 2012 12:46 PM  

It is not axiomatic that the principle of "one man, one vote" is the singular and only way for a people to achieve or express the right of self-determination.

I never said it was you blithering idiot. Just because there are multiple ways to exercise a right of self determination does not make the right of self determination a "legal" right versus a "natural" right where there happen to be statutes that support or set a procedure for the exercise of that right. Stop Tadding around, you are embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous Stilicho December 28, 2012 12:52 PM  

In addition, foreign citizens in the USA, legally or illegally, have none of the rights of citizens.

Not as citizens (i.e. guaranteed by Constitution). They (foreigners)do have the rights with which they were endowed by their Creator regardless of whether any gov't recognizes those rights. They also have whatever state granted or recognized rights that the host state allows. It is quite simple really.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 28, 2012 12:58 PM  

From a purely legal standpoint, I agree with Vox that Morgan could be deported for his actions. But from a practical standpoint...

...well, 10 years ago, hell, even 5 years ago, I would have said "We could, but we shouldn't. Better to let him make his claims than to set a precedent for hammering people, even non-citizens, for espressing political ideas."

But today? Sadly, I now realize that with the Left, there's no need for precedents, they make crap up all the time and have no respect for legal or cultural precedents. Their only use for such things is as bludgeons to hit their opponents with.

So to hell with 'em. Time to be ruthless every opportunity we get. The Left can hardly be driven to any worse behavior than they already exhibit.

Anonymous Just us December 28, 2012 12:59 PM  

"They also have whatever state granted or recognized rights that the host state allows."

Which if it's a leftard state means they have more rights than U.S. citizens.

Blogger IM2L844 December 28, 2012 1:05 PM  

Stop Tadding around, you are embarrassing yourself.

I thought we would have a luxuriance of Tadisms by now, but it's a start.

Blogger Nate December 28, 2012 1:09 PM  

The Constitution doesn't Guarantee anything either... it merely enumerates some Rights... and it really shouldn't have ever done that in the first place.

It is not the Second Amendment that prevents the federal government from regulating firearms. Its the fact that regulating firearms is not one of the few specific powers the federal government was granted in the first place.

Human Rights are granted by God and either ignored or acknowledged by Governments. Rebellion against those governments that do not acknowledge those rights is Good. It is the Will of God to over-throw them... violently if necessary.

Anonymous J. Doe December 28, 2012 1:18 PM  

The USA and other countries regularly ban specific foreign individuals from entering their borders for whatever reason. For example, a few years back England banned Michael Savage from visiting there.

It would seem logical and legally reasonable that once here, should any visitor become a persona non grata - for whatever reason - that the government may withdraw its welcome, just as it regularly prevents people from entering in the first place.

Morgan and his anti-Constitutional bigmouth have provided just cause for kicking his pansy Limey ass out.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 28, 2012 1:35 PM  

Nate December 28, 2012 1:09 PM

The Constitution doesn't Guarantee anything either... it merely enumerates some Rights... and it really shouldn't have ever done that in the first place.


It's unfortunate that Aaron Burr didn't kill that bastard a few years prior.

Anonymous Noah B. December 28, 2012 1:36 PM  

I agree with you totally, Don. My point is that Congress has intentionally clouded the issue of declaring war to avoid having to act decisively and accept responsibility for the outcome. To simply claim that we are not at war glosses over the government's duplicity, which the courts have not attempted to stop. When it suits their purposes, the government certainly claims that we are at war with Al Qaeda.

Blogger Nate December 28, 2012 1:45 PM  

i agree that a government has the right to expel individuals... but depriving them of their property is a complicated matter.

Anonymous Noah B. December 28, 2012 1:50 PM  

But the declaration of war is a side issue.

If foreigners have rights that are recognized by the Constitution, how can Congress remove that recognition by vote of a simply majority to declare war? Would the Framers have really intended for the rule of law to be stripped away so easily from those it is intended to protect when the Constitutional amendment process is such a lengthy process?

Anonymous Tad December 28, 2012 1:51 PM  

@Nate

It is not the Second Amendment that prevents the federal government from regulating firearms. Its the fact that regulating firearms is not one of the few specific powers the federal government was granted in the first place.

The Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the General Welfare clause all provide Congress with the power to regulate firearms. While there are obvious limitations to the regulations that both the federal and state governments can put in place, the grant of power to the Federal and state governments to regulate firearms is not in dispute.

Anonymous Noah B. December 28, 2012 1:53 PM  

GFYS Tad.

Anonymous Scintan December 28, 2012 1:58 PM  

The Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the General Welfare clause all provide Congress with the power to regulate firearms.

As usual, you're talking out of your ass and getting your arguments wrong. Not a single one of the clauses you cited to gives Congress the power to regulate firearms. The Second Amendment makes that clear.

Blogger Nate December 28, 2012 2:02 PM  

"The Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the General Welfare clause all provide Congress with the power to regulate firearms. "

As usual... you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Read the Federalist Papers. Read... virtually anything John Jay wrote.

The Commerce Clause gave no such power at all. He wrote, along with Jefferson and even Alexander Hamilton (who was the big government guy) wrote that the Commerce Clause was not written broadly at all.

The fact that courts have wrongly allowed the clause to be abused has no bearing on its original intent. It means what the authors said it means.

If morons 200 years later decide that green is blue and blue is red... it doesn't change the nature of the colors. It just exposes the morons.

Anonymous Scintan December 28, 2012 2:06 PM  

The fact that courts have wrongly allowed the clause to be abused has no bearing on its original intent. It means what the authors said it means.

This needs to be loudly pointed out every hour of every day. Sadly, the courts have been just as complicit in the undermining of the Constitutions as the presidents and congresses.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 28, 2012 2:17 PM  

Noah B. "To simply claim that we are not at war glosses over the government's duplicity, which the courts have not attempted to stop. When it suits their purposes, the government certainly claims that we are at war with Al Qaeda."

I agree, of course. I can historically understand how a war can exist between nations, which has been the normal case for centuries. But Al Qaeda is not a country, it is not a government, it is not an ethnic group, it is not a nationality, and there is no land over which Al Qaeda holds jurisdiction. Which leaves me with Al Qaeda being pirates, or bandits, some other criminal enterprise.....thus they can never be enemy combatants, can never be accorded the rights under the Geneva Convention and must be tried for their criminal activities. This means that Al Qaeda is no different from a Mexican drug cartel or any other gangsters. Clearly, they are not soldiers, wear no uniform or carry a flag into battle, and represent no country. Declaring war on Al Qaeda would seem to dignify brigands and pirates with status they never had and certainly do not deserve.

Anonymous Clay December 28, 2012 3:07 PM  

Tad December 28, 2012 10:51 AM @Vox Day

First, it's never a good idea to expect substance in a twitter exchange.


An expert on echanging "substanances", I'm relatively certain.

Blogger tz December 28, 2012 4:22 PM  

SD v.s. VD on an obnoxious immigrant...

Advantage Vox. Any normal, sane person, even if they believed in human rights, and charity would eject an obnoxious "guest" from their property at the point they became obnoxious and destructive.

SD - we might be forced to put up with 5th column citizens, but we do not have to do the same with those who if there were citizens would be betraying the country or everything it is founded upon. He can spout his vile bile live via satellite from the UK if he wants and CNN desires to keep him on.

This parallels the (illegal) immigrant problem. People here not to strengthen the country but to be parasites or destroy it.

Piers Morgan can have whatever God granted rights the UK recognizes at the moment (it recognizes remarriage and soon gay marriage, though I wonder if they are "God given").

He may have transient rights as a guest in the US, but he has destroyed his welcome, so maybe if he was to stay he could continue to spew nonsense, but he has no "God-given" right to stay. And the privilege of staying in the USA can be revoked for far lesser reasons than treason.

Anonymous JT December 28, 2012 4:26 PM  

Vox, if the rights are granted BY the constitution and not God-given then gov't defines them. Foreign nationals don't have the privilege to participate in our voting etc because those are not rights. Morgan has not been prevented from speaking, and we are not hindered, as yet, from calling him a douchebag...cuz he is a douchebag. You should also trap the stupid socialist in that way too, cuz he argues that the right to speech is sacred, but the right to self-defense, in his view, is not.

Blogger ajw308 December 28, 2012 4:44 PM  

What Nate said, and per the 10th Amendment, the Federal Government has no power regulate arms.

Blogger ajw308 December 28, 2012 4:47 PM  

We also need to keep in mind, per the 10th Amendment, that the Federal Government was never granted the power to regulate firearms.

Blogger ajw308 December 28, 2012 4:50 PM  

Ah,watch the internet eat a post, check it's really gone, repost something similar, and there's the first post. Argh!

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 5:12 PM  

"but he has no "God-given" right to stay."

I didn't say he had a God-given right to stay, I said he had a God-given right to speak his mind without fear or favor, and that this country traditionally honors that right. There may be statutory elements in place which provide for his expulsion basically for any reason at all, I wouldn't know. Good luck, of course, getting this Executive to do anything about it. I wouldn't recommend doing it, because it would invalidate the "without fear" bit (I hate it when the Left says things like, Of course you have the right to speak freely, it's just that we also have the right to viciously retaliate against you for speaking.) The exercise of freedom under threat of penalties may be courageous, but it's not drawing free breath in a land of ostensible liberty.

My only position here is on whether, while he is in America, we recognize that he enjoys the ability to exercise his prior right to speak his mind according to (what little there is of) his conscience. We do, and he does. What happens next, or could happen next, I don't know, because legal research is not my bag. And again, per your "guest" analogy, the United States is something more important than a dinner party that's gotten out of hand.

@Stilicho: You would recognize that I'm not embarrassing myself at all if you could recognize that your own argument throws itself to the mat, which is something one doesn't see every day.

So, no soup for you, here at Sumo Academy.

And now our little exchange has turned into nothing more than a dick-measuring contest, which doesn't interest me, so I'm not going to continue on about it. You're normally an astute and amiable, righteous dude. Let's go back to that version, shall we.

Anonymous WaterBoy December 28, 2012 5:29 PM  

RE: Bill of Rights

I disagree that the enumeration of specific rights contained in the BoR was a mistake. In far too many cases, it is the only thing stopping FedGov from totally usurping all those rights entirely.

FedGov has already demonstrated that it has no problem finding emanations in the penumbra around the various clauses in the Constitution proper, as evidenced by the numerous Commerce Clause mutations. A BoR-less Constitution simply provides them a much larger penumbra from which to draw its emanations.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 28, 2012 5:29 PM  

@Tad: I'm not the least bit persuaded that the clauses you cite grant Congress the power you claim they do, but, even if they did... the Second Amendment would still trump them all. You know why? Because That. Is. Why. They. Put. It. There. In. The. First. Place. In. Order. To. Trump. All. Other. Readings. And. Misconstructions. That. Is. Why. There. Is. An. Explicit. Bill. Of. Rights. To. Control. Other. Mischievous. Readings.

FRAMER ONE: Hey... this Constitution thing is coming along rather nicely, but you know what bothers me? Some of these clauses could be shadily interpreted to give Congress power to disarm the People.

FRAMER TWO: By Jove, you're right! Do you think we should stay up all night and re-write the whole thing?

FRAMER THREE: I've got a better idea! Let's attach a controlling rider at the end, a sort of, I don't know, "amendment" if you will, which explicitly states that that is NOT the way those clauses shall be interpreted, that the People, universally and under all circumstances, reserve the right to arm themselves, and that under no circumstances shall Congress or any other body infringe that right.

FRAMER ONE: Hmm, interesting idea... well, it would have to be unusually strong and certain language, just to make sure that idiots and scoundrels didn't try to work their way around it... I mean for instance, if we just say that Congress can't do that, they might argue that the President could do it instead... or the States...

FRAMER TWO: I've got it! How about "the right of the People SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? It controls EVERYTHING!!

FRAMER THREE: I like it. It's got a sort of iron-clad, airtight, watertight sense to it. Bring me my inkpot and comically long and feathery quill pen!

Anonymous WaterBoy December 28, 2012 5:56 PM  

@scoobius: Bingo!

Of course, even that hasn't stopped Congress from trying...but there you go.

A 2nd Amendment-less Constitution would have made US v. Miller even easier for FedGov, and we would all most likely have to acquire a federal firearms license, today.

Anonymous Salt December 28, 2012 6:30 PM  

NAPOLITANO: You know, Lincoln did a lot of horrible things during the Civil War and, as a result of much of what he did, it is now estimated that about 750,000 Americans lost their lives. But one of the things that he did was to incarcerate people without trial. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

And in a famous decision after Lincoln was dead, the Supreme Court, half of which he had appointed, said the Constitution applies in good times and in bad, for rulers and for ruled, for those in office and those who are not in office, for Americans and for non-Americans. There is no exception to its protections for bad times.
(emphasis added)

I'm sure he's jurisdictionally speaking.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag December 28, 2012 6:37 PM  

So as I was enjoying a new pair of felt boots the zeks had worked up for me over at the pelting station, and a trusted social workers for the State (a stoolie, as the dirty zeks tend to call them) passed me a note on the sly - in one of the felt boots of all things! - informing me of slanderous, anti-Soviet propaganda coming from one of the work huts. My Russian is not the best, but with the help of one of the tower guards I was able to make out the following:

"I've got it! How about "the right of the People SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? It controls EVERYTHING!!"

I laughed; I truly did. How many times must these two legged animals be told... nein, must be shown - that untermensch have no rights other than what die Arbeitslager - MY work camp - gives them?! Are they really that ungrateful for the housing, clothing, freedom from firearms, and perpetual work that they're provided with? Safety uber Automatiks; is that so horrible?

In the meantime, the entire hut will be given thrice-over dactylectomies and increased work norms. I'll be verdammt if the Politburo hears Levitan or Oprah on the radio again reading another list of unauthorized child liquidations - these partisans wielding their massively lethal weapons of destruction, and their imaginary amendments. Scheiße.

Anonymous League Of Supercilious Pricks December 28, 2012 7:06 PM  

Right on, Tad. YOU GO, GIRL!

Don't let that scoobius dweeb harsh your marshmellow.

Anonymous Tad December 28, 2012 8:30 PM  

@TZ

we might be forced to put up with 5th column citizens, but we do not have to do the same with those who if there were citizens would be betraying the country or everything it is founded upon. He can spout his vile bile live via satellite from the UK if he wants and CNN desires to keep him on.

But you actually DO have to put up with Piers Morgan, assuming he's broken no law and I've heard no one accuse him of this. He has every right—legal, constitutional or otherwise—to speak his mind.

This notion that one must be a citizen in order to offer critiques of culture, society or law is bizarre. It's really no more than an attempt to shut someone up merely because you don't like what they are saying. It's probably beneath a thinking person.

Anonymous Anonymous December 28, 2012 8:36 PM  

The breadth and depth of human stupidity!

- Galt-in-Da-Box

Anonymous kh123 December 28, 2012 9:14 PM  

"He has every right—legal, constitutional or otherwise—to speak his mind [assuming he's broken no law]... This notion that one must be a citizen in order to offer critiques of culture, society or law is bizarre. It's really no more than an attempt to shut someone up merely because you don't like what they are saying. It's probably beneath a thinking person."

Good to know that al-Amriki was simply a mistake, or that Obama really didn't mean to call for the assassination of al-Awlaki. Must have been the 9-iron talking.

Anonymous Curtis December 28, 2012 9:37 PM  

WinstonWebb December 28, 2012 1:35 PM

Nate December 28, 2012 1:09 PM

The Constitution doesn't Guarantee anything either... it merely enumerates some Rights... and it really shouldn't have ever done that in the first place.



It's unfortunate that Aaron Burr didn't kill that bastard a few years prior.

The Federalist Papers : No. 84




Blogger mmaier2112 December 28, 2012 9:45 PM  

One notes that Tad is not addressing Nate's points at all.

He can't, of course. Which is typical of moron statists.

One that I know in real life stopped communication after I said "I doubt you'd put up with your wife 'interpreting' her wedding vows the way SCROTUM interprets the Constitution."

No loss there...

Anonymous szook December 28, 2012 10:49 PM  

I have to say that I am very much with Vox on the subject of Mr. Morgan. The fact that he is an high profile and idiot journalist is simply all the better to provoke the correct amount of chill on to the yammering nay-bobs as there would be no way to hide the fact should he get booted off shore. His being here is purely a revokable privileged.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 28, 2012 10:53 PM  

Curtis points us to The Federalist Papers: No 84

wherein it says:


Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.


Fail. The "people" have probably never been in control of their government. It is simply a useful illusion (or is that, delusion?)

Anonymous 11B December 28, 2012 11:12 PM  

This notion that one must be a citizen in order to offer critiques of culture, society or law is bizarre. It's really no more than an attempt to shut someone up merely because you don't like what they are saying. It's probably beneath a thinking person.

That is correct. But it is also the right of the country to ask any non-citizen to leave if the nation believes that person's presence is not beneficial to the nation. For example, if Mr. Morgan were a racist and promoted the idea that America should not allow non-white immigrants into the USA, do you think his immigration status might not suddenly be in jeopardy? Sure, he has a right to say that, but I doubt he'd be allowed to remain. If anything when his visa came up for renewal, it would probably be denied.

So I don't see any problem with people wanting him to go if they feel he is speaking out against the Constitution. After all, newly minted citizens, at least in my dad's case, have to demonstrate a favorable disposition to the Constitution before they are eligible to become citizens. If an alien doesn't respect the Constitution, it is not out of the question for people to call for an end to his visa.

Anonymous Rip December 29, 2012 12:43 AM  

Countries (states, groups, etc.) do not have rights. They may have powers, but those powers are either given them through some form of consent or taken outright. Persons have rights, which are not granted them through any Earthly creation, else they are nothing more than privileges. So, if you believe that this man has no rights to free speech simply because he isn't a US citizen, then you don't understand the concept of rights to begin with.

This is the major conceptual disagreement I have with VD. He is not consistent with his logic when it clashes with his biases.

Yes, I know, if this thread is still going when I get a chance to check back in I will have the usual gnashing of teeth. But I'm sorry, this statement is just ridiculous to anyone that would otherwise EVER appeal to "rights".

voxday: He's not an American. He's British. He has no right to free speech or any other freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Sorry VD, but yes, yes he does. Else they ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE RIGHTS. They are nothing more than privileges allowed by , and thus can be just as easily revoked by said powers.

At heart, most of all of us are statists. The problem with statism is that, eventually, your biases force you to use the exact same arguments against those with which you usually disagree.

And yes, I realize the obvious analogy would be to say that a guest in your home can be made to leave if he displeases you, that analogy falls short on many levels. First and foremost, a political state is in no way equivalent to one's personal home.

You, as an individual, either have rights, or you do not have rights. Most people like to use the term as it suits them, but do not want to admit that what they are really advocating are privileges. That's fine, but if that is truly your opinion, own it.

Anonymous Curtis December 29, 2012 1:02 AM  

This was edited way back when and I don't have the original...


I am going prove to you that the right to bear arms is an individual right … AND a collective right:

Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.


They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Now, note that Hamilton says: “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Hamilton could have very well said: “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

The same can be said for religion.

Where do you find delegated authority and restrictions? In the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does anyone read where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

Hamilton was not really “anti-Bill of Rights.” His argument was that, if the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution, it would: “… furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. That they … “might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.”

If it is not restricted by the Constitution … nor delegated by the same … there is absolutely no power.

Now, I ask all of you in good faith, can you find anywhere in the Constitution where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

Unfortunately, Hamilton’s worst fears concerning a Bill of Rights have come to light.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44696/#sJUjexDruJE0Cekz.99

Blogger Nate December 29, 2012 8:05 AM  

While I agree Hamilton was indeed a bastard...

He was clearly dead right about the Bill of Rights.

Blogger Nate December 29, 2012 8:30 AM  

Scoobs

you left out Framer 4.. who did in fact say...

Look you bloody bafoons... you can't run about putting restrictions on powers that don't exist... because that gives the impression that the powers DO exist... and are just limited by the limits presented.

No one asks "what part of the constitution grants the federal government the power to do X" anymore. They simply point to which of their favorite enumerated rights it supposedly violates.

In other words the whole document may as well been thrown out and replaced with just the structural sections and the Bill of Rights alone. Because the appearance is the Federal Government can do anything it wants as long as it doesn't violate the amendments.

And given the idiotic view of the Commerce Clause.. that is precisely what has happened.

Anonymous Stilicho December 29, 2012 9:24 AM  

you can't run about putting restrictions on powers that don't exist... because that gives the impression that the powers DO exist... and are just limited by the limits presented.

True, but those inclined to embrace that perception would have done it anyway. Do you think that it would make a difference to such people if the 10th Amendment were actually the first paragraph of Article 1? Rabbits don't recognize fences. That's why you need a shotgun.

Anonymous Tad December 29, 2012 9:49 AM  

@11B

So I don't see any problem with people wanting him to go if they feel he is speaking out against the Constitution. After all, newly minted citizens, at least in my dad's case, have to demonstrate a favorable disposition to the Constitution before they are eligible to become citizens. If an alien doesn't respect the Constitution, it is not out of the question for people to call for an end to his visa.

Let me get this straight. If someone thinks the Constitution can be improved for one reason or another, that's enough for you to want them out of the country? Is it about them not agreeing 100% with the governing document? Or is it about them speaking up about the Constitution. What if Mr. Morgan suggested on live TV that the constitution is flawed because it allows 35 year olds to become president and he believes it ought to be 40 years old? Is that a deportable offense in your mind?

Punishing people because they speak up and have a different opinion from you. How 1930s USSR of you.

Blogger Nate December 29, 2012 10:00 AM  

"Let me get this straight. If someone thinks the Constitution can be improved for one reason or another, that's enough for you to want them out of the country?"

I propose a voting eligibility test.

"The Commerce Clause was originally intended to grant the Federal Government the power to regulate any that could be related in any way to interstate commerce. True? or False?"

anyone that answers "True" doesn't get to vote for anything. Ever.

Anonymous Tad December 29, 2012 10:57 AM  

@Nate

Fair enough. There's your proposal. In offering it you clearly have issues with the constitution, which does not include such a test. Does this mean that, like Mr. Morgan, you are disrespecting the Constitution and ought to be punished, even deported if not a citizen?

Blogger Nate December 29, 2012 11:36 AM  

"There's your proposal. In offering it you clearly have issues with the constitution, which does not include such a test."

Your reading comprehension is as pathetic as ever.

I didn't say anyone that had a problem with the constitution should be deported. I proposed a simple eligibility test for voting.

I clearly DO have MANY problems with the Constitution as written. in fact... I am quite certain I prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution in almost all respects.

Better to have a dysfunctional federal government than a tyrannical one.

Blogger Jamie-R December 29, 2012 11:47 AM  

Nice to see you embracing the social media Vox, plenty more idiots outside of the blogosphere to irritate and annoy with what is now a formerly European intellectualism. But oh well they don't sit next to candles with quill pens and believe in Jesus any more, that's too quaint and belongs in an antique shop, we've progressed man. We've progressed.

Anonymous Tad December 29, 2012 11:55 AM  

@Nate

I didn't say anyone that had a problem with the constitution should be deported. I proposed a simple eligibility test for voting.

Merely using your comment as a convenient tool to again point out the silliness of the "let's throw out Piers Morgan" brigade. This seems fair, given you used my comment to another to make a point you desired to make.

Anonymous 11B December 29, 2012 2:28 PM  

Punishing people because they speak up and have a different opinion from you. How 1930s USSR of you.

I will repeat it again since apparently you did not read my comment. It is the right of the country to ask any non-citizen to leave if the nation believes that person's presence is not beneficial to the nation. Did you notice the emphasis on the word non-citizen? Nowhere did I mention a citizen cannot speak their mind. Of course you conveniently mentioned me in the same sentence with the USSR of the 1930s. A regime which murdered its own citizens because they disagreed with its policies.

Morgan is a non-citizen. Which is what Vox was trying to point out. Non-citizens are here at the pleasure of the host nation. Their status is different than that of a citizen.

As such I see no problem in granting him or denying him access to this country. For example, Michael Savage is not allowed to even enter Great Britain because they claim what he espouses on his radio program is contrary to the UK's values. As such I would see no problem if the US did the same to Morgan if it deemed his presence was not beneficial to our nation.

Tad, one direct question: Do you believe any non-citizen has the right to enter and remain in the USA without permission from the state? In other words, do you believe in open borders?

Anonymous Tad December 29, 2012 8:05 PM  

@11b

Morgan is a non-citizen. Which is what Vox was trying to point out. Non-citizens are here at the pleasure of the host nation. Their status is different than that of a citizen.

Actually, Vox Day was pretty specifically claiming that Morgan, because he is not a U.S. citizen, does not enjoy the protection of Free Speech as laid out in the Constitution. That of course is incorrect. Morgan, while on U.S. soil and legally in this country, enjoys all the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Regarding open borders. No.

The petition to deport Morgan is simply damaging not to Morgan but to the American system and American values. Punishing a person because you don't like their views?? That kind of attitude has been observed on occasion in America, but rarely. And looking back at these instances, they are almost universally condemned. Anyway, does anyone really believe this administration or any other of the past 80 years would follow the advice laid out in the petition.

What would have worked much better, rather than making Morgan a symbol of Free Speech, is to organize a boycott of CNN.

Blogger Nate December 29, 2012 10:51 PM  

"This seems fair, given you used my comment to another to make a point you desired to make."

No. I used your comment as a launching point to remind you of the idiocy about the commerce clause you brought up previously.. and to mock it.

Good Lord kid.. if you ever learn basic reading comprehension it will be a bona fide miracle.

Blogger GK Chesterton December 31, 2012 1:51 AM  

I read the first third of this. Scubius is right on matters of rights. Vox is right on deportation _if_ he argues it on sovereign rights not rights of expression. Morgan is violating US sovereignty by being a foreign national demanding changes to the US government. This is a threat to sovereignty. As citizens in a republic our sovereign citizens demanding change in government presents no conflict with the Divine Right of Expression. However God also sets up nations and therefore a nation has a special right to exist.

Anonymous Anonymous February 15, 2013 6:21 PM  

"This notion that one must be a citizen in order to offer critiques of culture, society or law is bizarre. It's really no more than an attempt to shut someone up merely because you don't like what they are saying. It's probably beneath a thinking person."

And yet,white people are,through a form of soft tyranny, bound to live by this precept with regards to the cultures of other ethnicities living within the border of our own country every single day.

None question the notion that "It's impossible for a white man to know what it's like to be called a 'nigger'".

The use of the words "nigger","wetback","camel jockey", have forbidden to the host nation by a collection of later immigrants.In essence,we are being ruled by foreigners,within the borders of our own nation.

Sure, Piers Morgan has a right to undermine the constitution. He has the natural right to do that. He has the same natural right to attempt to undermine my nation and my people that I have to undermine that which he values,probably not his people-which seem to despise him-but even a slime like him has his values and aspirations.

I grew up in this country. The Constitution of my nation permits me to act as a soldier in the defense of my country.Rights are suspended in times of war.You can see where I'm going with this.

I've got this idea that maybe what they're doing is like some kind of high-stakes frat initiation. They certainly treat it like it's some sort of game. To prove you're "in the club",you gotta do "the Walk Of Fire" over our Constitution. I mean, shit, what the fuck else are they going to do? These ultra-famous people are all retards.

It's a free country. He can walk all over my Constitution if he wants,but the motherfucker better tread lightly.The American people are not very well symbolized by the bald eagle,we are more like a kennel full of rabid pit bull dogs.Wary,mean,and deadly if provoked.

Anonymous Anonymous February 15, 2013 6:56 PM  

"The use of the words "nigger","wetback","camel jockey", have *been* forbidden to the host nation by a collection of later immigrants."*

*White people of European descent in this country already experience a limit on their freedom of speech.It is therefore not "unfair" for them to place a limit on or circumscribe the rights of Piers Morgan to speak.How can it be? Whites are quite literally being "held down by The Man" so this little limey prick can kick us in the nuts.Why is it ok to make whitey pay for the sins of their forefathers and not ok for white people to make foreigners pay for their sins against us in the present? We're sentient beings. When you prick us,we bleed.

Morgan is the one attacking the Constitution. The Constitution didn't start the fight.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts