[at-l] OT - Freedom of Speech was Snowshoeing VS Hiking

Jim and_or Ginny Owen spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 24 21:05:14 CST 2010



David:

> I don't "get" the logic of the Volokh Conspiracy blog to which you linked.

 

I didn't either - at first. Not sure I agree with it entirely either.  But I'm 

"thinking" - and that is truly dangerous.  


> If I understand it correctly, the author says we have individual
> rights protected by the constitution, and since these rights are
> unfettered individually, they should also be unfettered when we
> organize ourselves as corporations; otherwise, if we limit corporate
> rights, we'll inexorably limit our individual rights.


Both corporations and individual "citizens" are constructs (i.e. - "state 

created entities").  Therefore, what can be done to corporations can be 

done to individual citizens.  


> This makes no logical sense to me.


Hey, we're talking "law" here - not "logic.  :) 


> Our individual rights protected by the constitution are not unfettered
> rights: all our "rights" are circumscribed: even our individual right
> to assemble and speak freely, is regulated in time, place, and manner.
> Individually. Never mind when organize. Our right to "assemble" is
> limited by the constitution solely to the end of petitioning the
> government: it isn't absolute. So, our individual rights are already
> circumscribed, and regulating the corporate organization isn't going
> to change that one bit. It's foolish to think otherwise.

 

Hmm - to the extent that our rights are circumscribed, it's either because 

the circumscription is legislatively imposed (and therefore unconstitutional) 

or because we've done it to ourselves by voluntary regulation that we've 

accepted as normal (but may still be unconstitutional) or because the 

restrictions are dictated voluntarily by common sense and courtesy.  

To my knowledge, the "fetters" you mention are not found in the Constitution. 

The Constitutional debates left no room for fetters on the rights that the 

Colonies demanded as a price for ratification of the Constitution.  

If the fetters are there, please educate me.  

 

I believe that all the fetters on our rights that you indicate are true - but only 

because, as a people, we've come to accept them.  But I believe a strict 

constitutional interpretation would find most of those fetters to be 

unconstitutional.  

 

In this case it would appear that the Court agrees with that view.  I wonder 

what would happen if Roe vs Wade were to be reconsidered? 

 

However, if you want to discuss this further, I'd suggest we do it privately. 

I'm still  of two minds about all this - and willing to talk about it.  But not here. 

 

Walk softly,

Jim
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://patsy.hack.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20100124/4fce9146/attachment.html 


More information about the at-l mailing list