From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Pardon Fischer?
Date: 29 Dec 92 10:09:29 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <C00C13.FqF@world.std.com>, fad@world.std.com (Frank A Deming) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.122411.620@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>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.
>>
> Okay.
> Article 1 section 8
> The Congress shall have power ...... to regulate commerce  
> with foreign Nations.

Good so far. Now, how does that clause extend to individuals who are in other
coutnries?

I know this is really a difficult concept for you to grasp, just as it has been
for many americans who have been convicted in foreign courts and are rotting in
foreign prisons:

The U.S. Constitution only extends to the U.S., its territories and posessions,
and those who are within those areas.

Fischer was outside of there.

> 
>>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.
>>
> Of course by now I have serious doubts of what you do know. I suppose you want 
> to change the focus because the Federal Government does have some grounds to 
> pursue this matter. The states did cede powers, amongst them the matters of
> foreign affairs, foreign commerce, war etc.

Right. But, and make an honest effort to understand this, the states can only
give up the powers they have. See, just because they get together they do not
get new powers ou of the coalition. If Georgia lacked the power to convict you
for playing chess in Yugoland, it couldn't give the federal government the
ability to do so. (If I lack the power to fly, and I give you all my ability to
fly, you STILL can't fly. Or, if I lack the ability attach your assets, I can't
give someone else the ability to attach your assets.)

Rights can only be transfered and limited, not created. 

> The constitution has been examined in regards to trade and travel. Bans of trade
> and travel to Cuba has been challenged. The Supreme Court upheld travel and 
> trade restrictions, example Califano v Aznavorian(hope I have the spelling right).

Please give the facts and holding of this. I believe it was a restriction on
trade and travel to and from the U.S. and Cuba directly. (Which would be within
the US powers of self-autonomy.)


>>
>>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??? 
>>
> Well, I will admit that I have erred, giving the president the power to regulate
> foreign commerce when that belongs to congress. However, curiosity showed up the
> Emergency Economic Powers Act, that attempts to regulate the Presidental powers
> in this area. Clearly, the situation in Yugoslavia is not a US emergency. A
> perusal of The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, indicates that there
> is alot of gray area in the matter of presidental power in these matters.

Actually, if you are serious about this area of the seperation of powers
doctrine, examine why Grahm-Rudman act was axed. Couldn't have a comptroller
appointed by one branch with the power of authority over the other--EVEN IF the
other branch agreed to it.

It was not determined to be grey area, as the U.S. Supreme Court determined
that the Constitution forbade such abrigation of power.

> 
> I will now suggest, and leave at this, that the real interpretation of the 
> power to regualte Fischer lies in a gray area, and it is beyond either of our
> current knowledge to clearly define it. I will leave you to your opinions.
> My cares will reside with resolving the abuses in Yugoslovia and the violations
> of the rights of many of the people living there. 

Well, I can agree with this. I believe that Fischer is innocent of any crime,,
but much of that will be determined by the Court's whims.


> 
>>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. 
>>
>>
> This is of course silly on your part. I care for the rights of the individual, 
> but recognize the rights of an individual are limited by the common good.

Hardly silly. We are more and more adpoting the xUSSR tenchniques as there is
no majot player to keep us in line.

> 
> Side note: Try the 9th amendment, and due process.

The ninth merely says that the people/states have other rights not enumerated.

Due process, IMHO, fails as for jurisdition. (One could argue for notice as
well, as with out jurisdiction there is no exepctation of jurisdiction, but if
they give a court jurisdiction, they will show him spitting on his notice.)


> 
> 
> Frank Deming
>