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