quote: The bill, which Carcieri introduced last week, also resurrects World War I-era laws that make it illegal to "speak, utter, or print'' statements in support of anarchy; speak in favor of overthrowing the government; or to display "any flag or emblem other than the flag of the United States'' as symbolic of the U.S. government.
Carcieri is the Gov. of Rhode Island, this bill is a state bill. When we start seeing phrases like "illegal to speak.." we know there is trouble brewing.
And yes, I know the ACLU has done good things, they just seem to concentrate too much on meaningless lawsuits which actually restrict freedom. This is an example of them getting it right.
[edit to add the last quote]
quote: ...makes it a felony to "willfully speak, utter, print or write or publish any language" intended to "incite, provoke or encourage" a "defiance or disregard of the constitution or laws of Rhode Island or the United States." (The statute also makes it a felony to "publicly display any flag or emblem" of a form of government that is "proposed by its adherents or supporters as superiour or preferable to the form of government of the United States.")
posted
Can you say Alien and Sedition Acts, children? Specifically, the Sedition Act of 1798:
quote:SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
Sorry for the block of eighteenth-century legalese, but I thought it might be a good idea to remind everyone that it's been done before; doesn't surprise me that someone is trying to do it again.
I think it's really interesting, by the way, that everyone always gets all bent out of shape when someone tries to burn a flag, but probably no one would say a thing if someone burned a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I mean, it's one thing to protest what the flag has come to symbolize. It's another to burn the document that grants you the freedom to burn anything in the first place....
Maybe the country wouldn't take notice. *I* certainly would.
I guess......have there ever been any reported instances of people publicly burning copies of the Constitution in protest of one policy or another?
[ February 19, 2004, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly once or twice, though I can't remember the when or why. But there have been numerous instances of the Bill of Rights being circulated as if it were a new petition; with ~80% of those interviewed at the signing booth disagreeing with its provisions.
posted
I don't think people burn copies of the constitution or the Bill of Rights simply because it isn't a very powerful image to see a sheaf of plain white paper going up in flames.
On the other hand, seeing the flag burn can and does excite emotions very quickly.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please note that this law also makes it a felony to possess or use WMD's in the state of Rhode Island. I'm glad they got that covered. Sure would have been embarassing if Province would have been nuked, and our hands were tied by not having a law against mass murder...
posted
I think people put too much store in symbols (the Flag) and not enough in substance (Constitution, Bill of Rights).
I had an interesting experience once. Every year on the Fourth of July, the town where I live sponsors a show and fireworks at the high school. And every year they hand out little American flags to people as they come in to the show.
Well, one year I happened to be involved in an organization that was participating in the event. At a planning meeting for the event I suggested that it might be a cool thing to hand people a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights along with the flag so that they would be able to read for themselves what the flag stands for. Seemed like a good idea to me. Imagine my surprise when everyone in the room suddenly looked at me as if I'd grown a hammer and sickle on my forehead or something, and I was quickly informed that this would not be appropriate at all.
At first I assumed that maybe they were afraid of people discarding the copies and causing too much of a mess to pick up. But, no. That wasn't it at all. I was informed later that my idea was much too radical and that the city would never approve it.
Radical? Well, yes, I guess government officials can see the advantage in people not being made aware of their rights. But radical? I suppose I didn't take into consideration the fact that this is a town that for years supported a local weekly newspaper (our only weekly newspaper) whose ownership was at that time, and as far as I know still is, at least partly composed of members of the John Birch Society.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: suddenly looked at me as if I'd grown a hammer and sickle on my forehead or something
Usually, those who support communism or socialism or even welfare states tend to avoid reading or acknowledging in any way, the constitution. I would think the JBS would be all for a distribution of those documents.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, you might want to familiarize yourself with a guy named Eugene Debs at some point. Strong socialist and strong believer in the Constitution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and did I forget to mention a very strongest proponent of voting rights for women? The socialist party in early 20th century america was supporting democracy far more strongly than the democrats and republicans were.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup, I know _I_ ignore the Constitution and BoR.
Plus, reading is too hard for this publically-educated brain.
EDIT: This is not to say I am a socialist or a communist. I do, however, have sympathetic thoughts to some of ideals of socialism, particularly within the construct of a Social Democracy.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
posted
Fugu, if you want to talk about E.V. Debs, why don't you post some quotes from him? I really don't have time to read through the meandering utopian ideas of a turn-of-the-century socialist.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're the one making positive assertions about his beliefs in the Constitution (which, given he was the socialist candidate for president four or five times, suggests there were probably a large number of socialists who agreed with him; heck, the last time he ran he got over one million votes! Even today that would be a huge number; this would certainly belie your statement, at least as far as socialists were concerned).
You want to make positive assertions, you defend them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're saying that because he got over a million votes, that he believes in the constitution? I don't see the connection.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You want to make positive assertions, you defend them.
I went to 1 or 2 sources of writtings of this clown. All he seems to talk about is labor unions and overthrowing capitalism. He is a typical socialist. Now if you can explain how capitalism can be "overthrown" within the bounds of the IXth and Xth amendments, go ahead.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the ninth amendment has nothing to do with capitalism, and what a surprise, neither does the tenth. Its perfectly possible for socialism to be established in complete compliance with those two amendments. The tenth amendment would require that socialism also be established on the state level, but Debs was certainly for that as well.
Do you have any logic to back up that those amendments are incompatible with socialism?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have any quotes or reasoning to support your extensive claims about the constitutionality of socialism?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah ah, what I'm making is a negative claim. I said if you wanted to make positive claims you should back them up with facts . Negative claims are much harder to prove on any suitably large subject matter, but much easier to disprove. On smaller subject matters such as the Constitution they aren't too hard to prove. I could go down the list and say that every single clause is compatible with almost pure socialism, but I think I'll just do it in one fell swoop -- nothing in the Constitution contradicts the existence of a mostly socialist government in the US. I can explain why for some key clauses (you picked some remarkably odd clauses, as they don't even remotely show such a thing) that might be construed to prevent socialism:
Article 1 Section 10: no impairing the obligations of contracts. This clause only applies to states, however congress is only empowered to do it insofar as it falls under their other powers. However, the oblication of contracts is a malleable things. Certain things cannot be part of the obligation of contracts, for instance. While states cannot make laws impairing the obligation of contracts, they can certainly make laws defining it.
Article 4 Section 4: guaranteed republican form of government -- its perfectly possible for socialists to be elected; in fact, they're often very much for free elections. As pointed out, many socialists including Debs were for expanding the right to vote when others were not. Heck, Marx was highly for the right to vote (as a communist example).
Amendment 5: no taking private property for public use without just compensation. Just compensation is a tricky concept; however, there are several very important things to note. One: value is not private property. Currency is a value holder guaranteed by the united states of america; altering the nature of that guarantee does not deprive one of property, but of value. Two, even if value were property, the power to tax supercedes this amendment (or rather, the benefits government provides through taxation are considered just compensation). To use this amendment against socialism would also mean using it against the ability of the government to tax at all.
Besides, you have yet to provide any evidence for your claim that those two clauses in any way contradict socialism. I assume you have some sort of logic, however much I'm unable to see it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would think the JBS would be all for a distribution of those documents.
Not the members of the John Birch Society I've been around (and I have been around a few in my time, more and longer than I would have wished). Generally, they are only in favor of the rights of a very small portion of the population - and certainly not people of color and non-Christians. Those I have known wouldn't be in favor of anything that might even give a hint to these groups that they might have some sort of rights.
I understand the Birch Society has been trying to disown their racist and religously exclusivist past recently. Considering the tirades I had to endure when I was a child and we would go to my mother's friend's house for Sunday dinner they'd have to go quite a ways to convince me of their sincerity. We would go over to these Birch Society members house, who would talk nothing but politics and how horrible it was that their neighborhood was being "infiltrated" by African-Americans (which is most emphatically not the word they used). Then on the way home my father (who just sat and shook his head a lot during these conversations - he didn't want to start an argument) would give me the standard lecture on the evils of fascism. (My father did know a bit about fascism and fascists, since he spent about two years during World War II as a guest of the Nazis - he was a prisoner of war.)
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Negative claims are much harder to prove on any suitably large subject matter, but much easier to disprove. On smaller subject matters such as the Constitution they aren't too hard to prove. I could go down the list and say that every single clause is compatible with almost pure socialism, but I think I'll just do it in one fell swoop -- nothing in the Constitution contradicts the existence of a mostly socialist government in the US. I can explain why for some key clauses (you picked some remarkably odd clauses, as they don't even remotely show such a thing) that might be construed to prevent socialism:
