07-06-2022, 12:10 PM
I thoroughly distrust the current Supreme Court, one that might as well have thee members of the John Birch Society (OK, they were vetted by the Federalist Society on behalf of Donald Trump). The hard Right has its desires, and it could destroy all liberties not specifically enshrined in the Constitution on behalf of the economic elites who want people other themselves to be in the most profitable relationship between employers and employees -- that is, master and serf. Slavery of course is out of the question, but serfdom is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution.
The world has two basic forms of law -- common law, in which tradition establishes basic rights in practice that a government does not negate because such would be seen as tyrannical. The freedom to travel, the ability to publish without censorship or ruinous taxation, free speech and assembly, freedom of religious conscience,. freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, the absence of penal excess and outright torture, the possibility of bail if a speedy trial is practically impossible, an impartial jury. consumer choice, protest, and the ability to change employers (if one can find another employer) were generally recognized in English common law. The American Revolution happened largely because George III chose to take away those traditional and thus natural rights. The Founding Fathers did not need to delineate all the rights that people had, indeed, using the Tenth Amendment to honor those.
Yes, there are qualifications. One has no right to criminal speech (threats) or writing (forgery), both crimes at common law. Travel may be restricted for those charged with serious crimes (people are often arrested, as was pervert-enabler Ghislaine Maxwell, when they start showing signs of preparation to flee). Some employment opportunities require licensing, as for medicine, law, teaching, or the sale of real estate. Of course we all have taxes to pay.
The Trump court has the prospect of taking away any human right not enshrined in the Constitution on the ground that all of us owe unqualified allegiance to those who own the assets, failure at which will be a crime against prosperity. I can see such a clause as no less inimical to personal freedom and even survival as the Stalinist concept of "enemy of the people". I can imagine teacher, journalists, and preachers losing their livelihoods and even being imprisoned for telling people that economic inequality solely for the service of entrenched elites is grossly immoral, that global warming is not a a myth, that abortion in a life-threatening situation whose sole resolution is abortion is a crime against the Will of God, that a War For Profits is unjust or futile, or that young-earth creationism is bunk, or that a despotic or corrupt leader is exactly that. I can imagine welfare disappearing in return for personal debt at shylock terms that result in hereditary peonage for anyone who defaults. This is exactly what one can expect if the only virtue is what rapacious, selfish, arrogant people with inordinate wealth and power have.
Such is the view of the American Hard Right, which knows well enough to not do this all in one fell swoop. Even Hitler had to resort to salami tactics against old freedoms and decencies until none of those existed. Such requires the negation of the English common law that our Founding Fathers never rebelled against.
The alternative is civil law, which is not the Anglo-American tradition. In it all civil liberties as exist must be enumerated in a civil code, which allows fewer debates except in establishing those. People and government officials face specific responsibilities and injunctions. It is less flexible, but it leaves little doubt. When the common law protections of basic human rights vanish, civil law is all that can prevent tyranny.
The world has two basic forms of law -- common law, in which tradition establishes basic rights in practice that a government does not negate because such would be seen as tyrannical. The freedom to travel, the ability to publish without censorship or ruinous taxation, free speech and assembly, freedom of religious conscience,. freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, the absence of penal excess and outright torture, the possibility of bail if a speedy trial is practically impossible, an impartial jury. consumer choice, protest, and the ability to change employers (if one can find another employer) were generally recognized in English common law. The American Revolution happened largely because George III chose to take away those traditional and thus natural rights. The Founding Fathers did not need to delineate all the rights that people had, indeed, using the Tenth Amendment to honor those.
Yes, there are qualifications. One has no right to criminal speech (threats) or writing (forgery), both crimes at common law. Travel may be restricted for those charged with serious crimes (people are often arrested, as was pervert-enabler Ghislaine Maxwell, when they start showing signs of preparation to flee). Some employment opportunities require licensing, as for medicine, law, teaching, or the sale of real estate. Of course we all have taxes to pay.
The Trump court has the prospect of taking away any human right not enshrined in the Constitution on the ground that all of us owe unqualified allegiance to those who own the assets, failure at which will be a crime against prosperity. I can see such a clause as no less inimical to personal freedom and even survival as the Stalinist concept of "enemy of the people". I can imagine teacher, journalists, and preachers losing their livelihoods and even being imprisoned for telling people that economic inequality solely for the service of entrenched elites is grossly immoral, that global warming is not a a myth, that abortion in a life-threatening situation whose sole resolution is abortion is a crime against the Will of God, that a War For Profits is unjust or futile, or that young-earth creationism is bunk, or that a despotic or corrupt leader is exactly that. I can imagine welfare disappearing in return for personal debt at shylock terms that result in hereditary peonage for anyone who defaults. This is exactly what one can expect if the only virtue is what rapacious, selfish, arrogant people with inordinate wealth and power have.
Such is the view of the American Hard Right, which knows well enough to not do this all in one fell swoop. Even Hitler had to resort to salami tactics against old freedoms and decencies until none of those existed. Such requires the negation of the English common law that our Founding Fathers never rebelled against.
The alternative is civil law, which is not the Anglo-American tradition. In it all civil liberties as exist must be enumerated in a civil code, which allows fewer debates except in establishing those. People and government officials face specific responsibilities and injunctions. It is less flexible, but it leaves little doubt. When the common law protections of basic human rights vanish, civil law is all that can prevent tyranny.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.