Thursday, September 30, 2004
Regarding that judicial opinion (see the next post), I have one more question:
Where does the judge gets the idea the Constitution embodies the ideal of fair play? I mean, there is a certain sense of fair play in patent and copyright law, proscribing ex post facto laws, and precluding laws targetted to favored individuals.
Nonetheless, is "fair play" really a concept taught in law school?
Where does the judge gets the idea the Constitution embodies the ideal of fair play? I mean, there is a certain sense of fair play in patent and copyright law, proscribing ex post facto laws, and precluding laws targetted to favored individuals.
Nonetheless, is "fair play" really a concept taught in law school?
Katherine Jean Lopez, of National Review Online, gives a preview of Andy McCarthy's analysis or the 120-page Patriot Act ruling that eliminated certain snooping priveledges accorded the FBI without court review.
Civil liberarians might think the judgement protected precious first and fourth amendment enumerated rights, but a small slip in language, if left standing, would make this a pyrhic victory.
Katherine provides a quote
So there you have it. Government creates rights and judges protect them.
That's not a very firm foundation on which to build a republic. I would have hoped the judge would have learned in high school history or civics about the affect philosphers like John Locke with their theories of "natural rights" had on our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson referred in the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable rights" with which we are "endowed by our Creator". The 10th amendment of the Constitution -- and surely the judge has some exposure to that document -- states that powers not enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states and with the people.
I'm sure this is just nitpicking a casual sentance in a long judicial opinion, but where we get our rights from is central to who we are as Americans. Natural rights are given to every person at birth. They are not granted and they cannot be given away. In countries where those rights cannot be exercised, it is by dint of tyranny, the brutal theft of ones birthright.
Judges in the U.S. will have no more success with tyranny than a rogue president or gutless congress, so I'm not worried for my rights even if this random sentence reflects the judge's actual thinking. But it is worth restating at regular intervals that the people delegate powers to the government, and not the other way around.
Civil liberarians might think the judgement protected precious first and fourth amendment enumerated rights, but a small slip in language, if left standing, would make this a pyrhic victory.
Katherine provides a quote
Personal freedoms, on the other hand, are far more unique. As individualized by constitutional ideals to embody our sense of human dignity, decency, and fair play, they attach to each individual by promise of the very government which creates those basic rights and is charged to protect them, and upon whose faithful adherence to their underlying principles and aims their enduring enjoyment depends."
So there you have it. Government creates rights and judges protect them.
That's not a very firm foundation on which to build a republic. I would have hoped the judge would have learned in high school history or civics about the affect philosphers like John Locke with their theories of "natural rights" had on our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson referred in the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable rights" with which we are "endowed by our Creator". The 10th amendment of the Constitution -- and surely the judge has some exposure to that document -- states that powers not enumerated in the Constitution remain with the states and with the people.
I'm sure this is just nitpicking a casual sentance in a long judicial opinion, but where we get our rights from is central to who we are as Americans. Natural rights are given to every person at birth. They are not granted and they cannot be given away. In countries where those rights cannot be exercised, it is by dint of tyranny, the brutal theft of ones birthright.
Judges in the U.S. will have no more success with tyranny than a rogue president or gutless congress, so I'm not worried for my rights even if this random sentence reflects the judge's actual thinking. But it is worth restating at regular intervals that the people delegate powers to the government, and not the other way around.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Time to pretend I'm more reasonable than the average blogger. I'm not, but I like to pretend.
Today's issue: "Imagine the press reaction if a Republican did that."
I've read that line far too much recently. Usually, if I imagine the press reaction as I'm told, I conlude most of the press would in fact react the same way they would if a Democrat did it. When I say most of the press, I exclude columnists and opinion writers, something I'm not sure the other bloggers think to do. To the degree any of the reputable writers vacilate, I don't think it would entail the whiplash-inducing 180-degree turn I'm supposed to be envisioning. Which isn't to say bloggers couldn't find some reporter in one of the fifty second-tier newspapers in the U.S. who would treat the issue completely differently if a Republican did that.
I've taken to skipping past the phrase and ignoring the rest of the post for at least six months now. Arguing from imagination leads to logic illustrated by the likes of Greek philosophers, such as Xeno's paradox. My imagination does not consitute proof, and certainly falls short of the surity needed to criticize a person's motives. It is an ad hominem attack that lacks a hominem. It is a strawman without the straw.
But the phrase seems to be popping up more and more. This morning I read it twice nearly in a row. Then, just now, I find the Wall Street blog falling for this fallacy.
From Best of the Web, quoting mullings.com:
Bloggers where using the phrase in reverse regarding the Kitty Kelley book, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, a broad slime of the Bush family from Prescott to George W. and probably his daughters. Tim Graham, of the Media Research Council, nails The Today Show for having three days of Kitty Kelley's unvarified claims while ignoring the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Examples, now that's what I like. Facts, not imagination. I don't have to imagine how The Today Show would react if Kitty Kelley slimed a Democrat. I have a pretty good recent example.
Graham then goes overboard. He almost always does, stretching his facts to cover his thesis, or more accurately, bloating his thesis till his facts no longer cover it. Somehow, he concludes his gotcha applies to the whole of the news media:
Today's issue: "Imagine the press reaction if a Republican did that."
I've read that line far too much recently. Usually, if I imagine the press reaction as I'm told, I conlude most of the press would in fact react the same way they would if a Democrat did it. When I say most of the press, I exclude columnists and opinion writers, something I'm not sure the other bloggers think to do. To the degree any of the reputable writers vacilate, I don't think it would entail the whiplash-inducing 180-degree turn I'm supposed to be envisioning. Which isn't to say bloggers couldn't find some reporter in one of the fifty second-tier newspapers in the U.S. who would treat the issue completely differently if a Republican did that.
I've taken to skipping past the phrase and ignoring the rest of the post for at least six months now. Arguing from imagination leads to logic illustrated by the likes of Greek philosophers, such as Xeno's paradox. My imagination does not consitute proof, and certainly falls short of the surity needed to criticize a person's motives. It is an ad hominem attack that lacks a hominem. It is a strawman without the straw.
But the phrase seems to be popping up more and more. This morning I read it twice nearly in a row. Then, just now, I find the Wall Street blog falling for this fallacy.
From Best of the Web, quoting mullings.com:
Kerry responded to a question about the vice president-elect's qualifications by saying: ''The Secret Service is under orders that if Bush is shot, to shoot Quayle,''
But as blogger Rich Galen observed when he reprised this story in December 2002, "Imagine the knee-slapping hilarity which would have accompanied a remark by a Republican Senator--ANY Republican Senator--if he had suggested that the Secret Service take out Al Gore in 1992."
Bloggers where using the phrase in reverse regarding the Kitty Kelley book, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, a broad slime of the Bush family from Prescott to George W. and probably his daughters. Tim Graham, of the Media Research Council, nails The Today Show for having three days of Kitty Kelley's unvarified claims while ignoring the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Examples, now that's what I like. Facts, not imagination. I don't have to imagine how The Today Show would react if Kitty Kelley slimed a Democrat. I have a pretty good recent example.
Graham then goes overboard. He almost always does, stretching his facts to cover his thesis, or more accurately, bloating his thesis till his facts no longer cover it. Somehow, he concludes his gotcha applies to the whole of the news media:
...the coming Kitty Kelley media boomlet is another indelible example of the liberal media's lack of reverence for fact-checking and their enthusiasm for unproven smears when the target is Republican.
