On http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=5457#comments

I challenged anyone to a cagematch on this in the following comment:

#

Okay, here we go again.
Verbatim:
“Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ”
(source: US State Department)

I see that it says that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom speech or of the press.”

“Definition: abridge
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Middle French abregier, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short — more at BRIEF
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH
2 : to shorten in duration or extent
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : CONDENSE
synonym see SHORTEN”
(Source: Merian-Webster Online)

The First Amendment IS THE LAW!!!
What this member of the Bush Crime Syndicate is advocating, is that we burn the constitution, as it no longer matters, as the president is, in effect, King.

Anyone wanna go a couple of rounds in the Cage Match with me on this one? Go right ahead. I’ll warn you now, that you better do your homework, because uncited references will not be tolerated.

I am getting sick of the Bush Crime Syndicate, taking away our rights, burning the constitution, torturing people, and killing our military personell overseas.

These people must be brought up on RICO charges, prosecuted, and imprisoned. Every last one of them.

Comment by Roc Rizzo — 5/23/2006 @ 10:31 am


Any takers?

RocRizzo, you keep talking about burning the Constitution as if that's a bad thing, but if we burn our Constitutions now to heat our homes, we can conserve our oil supply for where it's really needed.  Let's all save the oil for the SUVs God intended us to drive.  It's not that hard to understand.

(sorry if I distract from an otherwise good discussion, sir)

Cagematch?  Why, it would be a losing battle, because... YOU ARE CORRECT !!!

The "Great Experiment" born as the United States is failing.  CEOs and other executives, most politicians, many corporate journalists and 'the media', and even most entertainers (Hollywood and pro sports) are the problem.

I'd quote sources, but just look around -- it's unavoidable and impossible to miss the signs.

Unfortunately, rhetoric won't fix the issue.  I don't condone violence, but I think the second Civil War is inevitable.  I just feel bad for the cops, they'll be thrust in front of the horde onslaught, to protect the guilty, while the big cheeses head for their homes in the hills.

Time to stock up on canned food and shotguns!  :-)

Well while this cage match has it's merits, I think that you will be hard pressed to find anyone who is seriously willing to challenge you. Hell, I support the idea. Anything to get that man out of office, but the who are we left with? Dick Cheney. And unless he starts popping a lot more lawyers we are screwed. I know Dvorak is more conservative, but I think most the readers of his blog are moderate to left.

The only hope I have is for at least one of the house of Congress to fall to the Democrats. I say fall because they are doing nothing to earn the idea. Their support (at least how I see it because I fell into this category two years ago) comes from the fact there are no other choices.

Though might I suggest to those in the states with early presidential primaries and want to see someone other than a republican in office...You have to pick a southern Democrat. That is the only way to win sadly. It has to be someone who talks like they do, hence Bill Clinton in 92 and 96. Carter in 76. Northern Democrats while better usually more liberal, cannot split the south let alone carry it. Check the electoral maps and you can see what I am talking about. And no, I am not supporting anyone. Just don't want to see John "I have lost my spine and shoved my head into Bush's butt, I didn't break when I was a POW but will to be president" McCain elected.

    John McCain turns 70 this year.  "Don't you think he looks tired?"

    Sag.

Actually some of the readers (and editors of the blog) are downright communists! But I digress. Most readers (and people in general) are moderates.

RocRizzo,

I'm not questioning what is in the 1st Ammendment.  Yes, that is fact.  What comes into question is how lawmakers (not you and I, ie "normal American citizens") interpret the Ammendments.  Do they look at it as black & white, or shades of grey?  I think it's pretty obvious that most of the laws in this country have some kind of gray area. 

Is letting the Press print what they want a good thing?

On the one hand it's a good way of checks and balances on the government - the gov should be on its toes all the time, doing the right thing - if the government didn't do stupid stuff, the Press wouldn't have so much to talk about.  On the flip side, you have to admit the media isn't as fair and balanced as it used to be.  Throughout the entire last century instead of reporting facts, many news agency have taken on their own political agenda, ironic that many of these media outlets are owned by larger corporations which...cha-ching, have in their hands the strings making congressman, senators, and presidents dance. 

The media was there in WW2 reporting, and if they acted the way they do today, D-Day may have been leaked, or worse.  Why is it that the media feels the need to leak information that they know is damaging to their country?  Shouldn't they, as an American, feel the least bit patriotic?  Especially when the information is damaging enough to cost lives.  There has to be a balance between being able to keep secrets, and punishing those (and I mean those at all levels, not just the media) whose "loose lips sink ships."

Just some thoughts.

How many times has the media leaked actual battle plans? I can't remember ever hearing "The US military is preparing a black ops mission in the northeast part of Bagdad on Sunday." The military things they have reported are usually told to them by people who have that right, ie not a leak. And media hasn't really been "fair and balanced' ever. No one can escape bias, it's human nature.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/essays/zachary1.htm

The ability to hold (and balance) two conflicting thoughts or ideas is a sign of intelligence, that doesn't seem to be around much (especially on this blog).

The first amendment does not, because of its numeric designation, trump other laws. 

Freedom of the press does not mean the press can do anything, or say anything, simply because it is (or will be) disseminated to the public.  The press can not drive up on your lawn, or install cameras in your bathroom, because they are going to write about you (whoever "you" may be).  The right to peaceably assemble does not mean that I can walk into an operating room any "peaceably" observe.  And freedom of the press does not mean that the press can disseminate any kind of governmental secret they come upon.  How could it?

That being said, the standard for the press being prosecuted by the government should be of the highest level, where the information presents a clear and present danger to the safety of the US or US citizens.  Loss of prestige, stature, embarassment, etc. to the government, country, individual politicians, etc. shall have *NO* bearing on whether the press should be prosecuted for revealing a state secret.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So why wasn't I allowed to pray in school? Why can't my kids now pray at school before eating their lunch?

There are only two problems with your logic.

I see that it says that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom speech or of the press.”

...and yet there's the old "can't yell fire in a movie theather" case that shows we've driven over this ideal before. You're right about the way it should be, but don't imply that Bush is the first to bypass it... just the most recent (and probably not the last).

I am getting sick of the Bush Crime Syndicate, taking away our rights, burning the constitution, torturing people, and killing our military personell overseas.

Unfortunetly rhetoric doesn't win in the Cage. Some proofs to back up your claim would help, too.

This would have been more interesting if you had a more thought-out writing. Give us three examples of how they've broken then law and you've got something worthy of a "debate".

Unfortunetly, what you have here is the adult version of a Digg flame war... at best.

James Hill

So why wasn't I allowed to pray in school? Why can't my kids now pray at school before eating their lunch?

You were free to pray at school, any time you wanted. Your kids are free to do so, any time they want.

What you aren't able to do - in a public school - is require/suggest/encourage all the students to participate in a prayer, as a group.

Actually some of the readers (and editors of the blog) are downright communists! But I digress. Most readers (and people in general) are moderates.

And who would the commies be?

Can I name the fascists?
 

... You're right about the way it should be, but don't imply that Bush is the first to bypass it... just the most recent (and probably not the last).

...Give us three examples of how they've broken then law and you've got something worthy of a "debate".

Nice burden-of-proof argument there, James.

1. He's not the first to "bypass" it??? The Court's decision re: "Shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre..." was a bypass? A Supreme Court decision regarding one of our rights is "bypassing" the Constitution? Is that what Brown vs Board of Education was, a "bypass"??

2. Tough to find cases of "breaking the law" when Dubya claims he has Presidential authority to determine which of his actions are legal, isn't it?

The first few examples I could think of:

a: When congress passes laws which Dubya doesn't want to obey, he signs them into law - in public - and then adds signing statements to them - in private.
"Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

I really like that, because at least Bubba was a lawyer - and the Arkansas Attorney General - before becoming Governor. When he quibbled about legalese: "It depends on what your definition of is is..." I knew that it was because that's what slimy lawyers do. But where is Dubya's expertise in interpreting Constitutional law documented??

b: When a suit against the government for kidnapping and torture is dismissed because: "U.S. Attorney R. Joseph Sher said government secrets could be exposed if Khaled al-Masri were allowed to proceed with his lawsuit."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12751099/

c: When Dubya decides to release classified material, indirectly, when it suits his political interests.
"As president, Bush has the authority to release any classified document. But Democrats quickly jumped on the information in Fitzgerald's pleading, accusing Bush of using that authority for political purposes."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/cia.leak/

Which begs the questions: 1. If it was safe to release, why was it ever classified? 2. If "Wilson's account of a 2002 trip to Niger to investigate the Iraqi uranium allegations "was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president (and the president) on a matter of signal importance:..." then why didn't Dubya or Dick rebut it directly, instead of via the backdoor?

d: When the Justice Department indicted a US citizen in a Federal court, to prevent having the Supreme Court review his being held in a Military prison.
"In light of the criminal charges against Padilla and his transfer to civilian custody the Supreme Court issued an order on April 3, 2006, declining to hear his appeal. The Court made clear, however, that it could take action in the future if the U.S. Government transferred him back to military custody."
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/inthecourts/supreme_court_padilla.htm

Is that enough to get a "debate" going?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So why wasn't I allowed to pray in school? Why can't my kids now pray at school before eating their lunch?

The government is suppose to stay neutral. It does not respect any one religion and does not prevent the practice of any religion in public and private places. Any institution that operates on federal funding, such as public schools,  is bound by law to honor the 1st Amendment. Allowing prayer in school becomes an endorsement.


Gonzales has no problem with challenging the constitution possibly with the hope all challenges will end up in a stacked Supreme Court.

Back to the point, some may call said reporters traitors, but it has become clear to me that the real traitors are those who do not respect the
principles this country was founded on and who would sell our hard won
freedom and mortgage the rule of law, not for security but for
political gain. The surveillance against reporters is being used not to
save lives but to save the administration political embarrassment, and
there will be no end to the political uses of surveillance if it is not
stopped now. RICO is one avenue this can be accomplished.