From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 23 Dec 92 12:24:11 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <4483@cvbnetPrime.COM>, fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088}) writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.011249.594@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> |> In article <4471@cvbnetPrime.COM>, fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088}) writes:
> |> > In article <1992Dec19.165648.569@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.ed|> So what you are saying is that by being a citizen of the US, you are
> |> > |> are basically its property and must abide by its whims even in areas where
> |> > |> it has no jurisdiction whatsoever??? You believe that simply by having lived
> |> > |> in the US you are subject to ALL of the wishes of a few political leaders
> |> > |> even when you leave the borders and fly to another country? 
> |> > |> 
> |> > 
> |> > I believe no one has indicated Bobby Fischer is the property of the US
> |> > goverment.
> |> 
> |> Then how do they exercise jurisdiction over him when he is NOT within US
> |> borders? What claim do they have to control his actions?
> |> 
> |> If he was within the US, sure.
> |> If he had some kind of extra relationship (worked for the CIA prsuant to a
> |>        contract) with the US, no problem.
> |> If he was owned by the US, well, the master can dictate edict to the servant.
> 	Again no one, including the US government, claims that Fischer is
> property. He is however a citizen with the rights and responsibilities that
> entails. He does not have infinite freedoms as you seem to want to give him.
> 
> |> 
> |> Barring that, by what right does the US attempt to exercise jurisdiction?
> |> 
> 
>   By the US constitution, the right to regulate commerce with foriegn 
> countries.

GO READ THE DAMNED THING!!! The Commerce Clause extends to the Federal
Constitution to enact laws which take priority over those of the individual
states.

However, what in the Constitution, gives the Federal Government the authority
to exercise control over people outside of its borders???

Stop parroting "the U.S. Constitution". The U.S. Constitution is a set of limits
upon the federal government and powers which the states have given up in order
to have a workable nation.

But, since you can not get beyond that phrase, and I suppose even if I were to
sit down and read it directly to you, you STILL would not understand that what
you seek is not in there, I'll give you a hypo so maybe you can focus on
something else.

Let's suppose Article I of the U.S. Constitution stated:

"The first and primary power of the office of Pesident of the United States
shall be to regulate the playing of chess in foreeign lands for the purpose of
making money."

Now, even IF that were in the U.S. Constitution, who the hell gave them the
authority to grant the US President the power to regulate an event which is
outside of U.S. borders??? 

Dude, America is not God! It does not have the authority to dictate its whims
over the whole world. When a person leaves the shores, and places himself under
the jurisdiction of another country, America should realize that its power over
that individual is gone.

My God, in 1980 when the Cold War was a harsh reality, and the Soviet Union
forbade its artists to travel in America without a KGB member present, we
called them barbaric. IF they decided to to stay in the U.S., the UUSR 
impounded all of their posessions. All communications leaving the country were
monitered. Letters were opened, telephone conversations cut.

And we, as a country, said that the USSR was over-extending the authority that
a nation has over its citizens.

Now, 12 years later, the U.S. wants to jail a man, and confiscate his earnings,
or practicing his profession in a foreign country...

And you approve.

I think Russia won the Cold War--they removed from their government many of the
beliefs you embrace.