Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Brutus" Number I
Constitution Society ^ | 18 October 1787 | Anti-Federalist Papers

Posted on 12/06/2001 12:04:43 PM PST by Jim Robinson

"Brutus" Number I

18 October 1787

To the Citizens of the State of New-York.

When the public is called to investigate and decide upon a question in which not only the present members of the community are deeply interested, but upon which the happiness and misery of generations yet unborn is in great measure suspended, the benevolent mind cannot help feeling itself peculiarly interested in the result.

In this situation, I trust the feeble efforts of an individual, to lead the minds of the people to a wise and prudent determination, cannot fail of being acceptable to the candid and dispassionate part of the community. Encouraged by this consideration, I have been induced to offer my thoughts upon the present important crisis of our public affairs.

Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns. We have felt the feebleness of the ties by which these United-States are held together, and the want of sufficient energy in our present confederation, to manage, in some instances, our general concerns. Various expedients have been proposed to remedy these evils, but none have succeeded. At length a Convention of the states has been assembled, they have formed a constitution which will now, probably, be submitted to the people to ratify or reject, who are the fountain of all power, to whom alone it of right belongs to make or unmake constitutions, or forms of government, at their pleasure. The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory.

Momentous then is the question you have to determine, and you are called upon by every motive which should influence a noble and virtuous mind, to examine it well, and to make up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so imperfect. If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.

With these few introductory remarks, I shall proceed to a consideration of this constitution:

The first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether a confederated government be the best for the United States or not? Or in other words, whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and controul of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only?

This enquiry is important, because, although the government reported by the convention does not go to a perfect and entire consolidation, yet it approaches so near to it, that it must, if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate in it.

This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof." And by the 6th article, it is declared "that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world. So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please. No state legislature, or any power in the state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has to do with that of another. In the business therefore of laying and collecting taxes, the idea of confederation is totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced. It is proper here to remark, that the authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important of any power that can be granted; it connects with it almost all other powers, or at least will in process of time draw all other after it; it is the great mean of protection, security, and defence, in a good government, and the great engine of oppression and tyranny in a bad one. This cannot fail of being the case, if we consider the contracted limits which are set by this constitution, to the late [state?] governments, on this article of raising money. No state can emit paper money — lay any duties, or imposts, on imports, or exports, but by consent of the Congress; and then the net produce shall be for the benefit of the United States: the only mean therefore left, for any state to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct taxation; and the United States have also power to lay and collect taxes, in any way they please. Every one who has thought on the subject, must be convinced that but small sums of money can be collected in any country, by direct taxe[s], when the foederal government begins to exercise the right of taxation in all its parts, the legislatures of the several states will find it impossible to raise monies to support their governments. Without money they cannot be supported, and they must dwindle away, and, as before observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government.

It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty. — I shall not, however, dwell upon these, as a few observations upon the judicial power of this government, in addition to the preceding, will fully evince the truth of the position.

The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state, at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states.

How far the clause in the 8th section of the 1st article may operate to do away all idea of confederated states, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite [indefinite?], and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures. Suppose the legislature of a state should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the state debt, may the Congress repeal this law, because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they may think proper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, are the supreme lay of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of the different states to the contrary notwithstanding. — By such a law, the government of a particular state might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.

It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the constitution would warrant a law of this kind; or unnecessarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting, that the federal legislature would be more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the constitution, than that of an individual state, further than they are less responsible to the people. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.

Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, or not? It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such an one as to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people. The question then will be, whether a government thus constituted, and founded on such principles, is practicable, and can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?

If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government, we shall be constrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these encreasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two. The one is the baron de Montesquieu, spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. "It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected." Of the same opinion is the marquis Beccarari.

History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.

Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experience of mankind, are against the idea of an extensive republic, but a variety of reasons may be drawn from the reason and nature of things, against it. In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, and decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion concerning it.

In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind.

In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few. If the people are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.

The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not.

In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.

The laws cannot be executed in a republic, of an extent equal to that of the United States, with promptitude.

The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the laws, either by an armed force, maintained at the public expence for that purpose; or by the people turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance.

In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and [are] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic. In England, where they depend upon the parliament for their annual support, they have always been complained of as oppressive and unconstitutional, and are seldom employed in executing of the laws; never except on extraordinary occasions, and then under the direction of a civil magistrate.

A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people." Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government and laws. The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient to support and execute its laws, and to operate upon the fears of any faction which may be opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the execution of the laws themselves, but also to compel the most of them to aid the magistrate; but the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers: the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. The people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would not know one another's mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet — a government of all others the most to be dreaded.

In a republic of such vast extent as the United-States, the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts. It cannot be sufficiently numerous to be acquainted with the local condition and wants of the different districts, and if it could, it is impossible it should have sufficient time to attend to and provide for all the variety of cases of this nature, that would be continually arising.

In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States, must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state, in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.

These are some of the reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.

Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it, that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic, yet if this objection was obviated, there are exceptions to it, which are so material and fundamental, that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt it. I beg the candid and dispassionate attention of my countrymen while I state these objections — they are such as have obtruded themselves upon my mind upon a careful attention to the matter, and such as I sincerely believe are well founded. There are many objections, of small moment, of which I shall take no notice — perfection is not to be expected in any thing that is the production of man — and if I did not in my conscience believe that this scheme was defective in the fundamental principles — in the foundation upon which a free and equal government must rest — I would hold my peace.

Brutus.


Next | Text Version | Brutus Contents | Anti-Federalist Papers | Liberty Library | Home | Constitution Society


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 next last
To: f.Christian
index
141 posted on 12/16/2001 3:35:11 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
thusevertotyrants member since October 22nd, 2001

Aren't you the presumptous one to lecture me--the FR with your asinine ramblings...if you hurry up and run fast you can jump back on the freak show circus wagon you fell off of and hope they fix the fence on the funny farm you escaped from...maybe you will be confined to the padded cell---the one where you came up with all your legal--moral theories Dr.Menglela!

142 posted on 12/17/2001 2:46:49 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
I dont recognize any authority on your part to judge my morals.

If you have no better weapons than to cite the fact that I am a relative newcomer and to throw the name of a Nazi in my direction,then you need to work on it. Tell you what - go practice in front of a mirror, and we'll engage in a battle of wits if and when you find yours.

143 posted on 12/17/2001 4:45:11 AM PST by thusevertotyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
You can attempt to politicize this any way you like, but the fact remains - Noone had any right of custody over Elian other than his father.

Wrong. That is for the courts to decide, not Clinton or you.

144 posted on 12/17/2001 7:04:35 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
You on the other hand, sanction the Miami relatives' criminal act because you agree with their cause.

Where are the criminal charges against the relatives? Why was the only arrest warrant during the raid for Elian? Try to reconcile your opinions with the facts of the matter, and quit slandering the Miami relatives because they had the temerity to pursue their LEGAL options for Elian in the matter.

145 posted on 12/17/2001 7:13:54 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
for tyranny when I have clearly said that I wish to choose for myself and allow you to do the same. This holds true until such time as one of us breaks the law. Elian's relative committed a crime.

LIE, LIE, LIE. Where is the conviction? You may consider it a crime, but they have never been charged with ANYTHING - and they won a day in court for Elian at the 11th Circuit, a day that was then denied by Clinton's raid.

146 posted on 12/17/2001 7:15:22 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
Can you do this?

I just did.

Oh, thats ok, I will allow the courts of a foreign country to decide if I am my child's father?

Juan didn't have much choice - his kid WAS in that country, and we had no idea whether it was his will to get his son back or Castro's. But a day in court would have gone a long way to determine that - a day in court that was denied by the action of the Clinton Administration.

And, regarding the rest of your inane babbling about Clintonism - Clinton was the one in charge when the raid happened. So of course I have to discuss his impact on the matter. And you try and lecture ME about common sense...

147 posted on 12/17/2001 7:28:30 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Yes the courts got involved, but should they have? Asked another way - on the day that your child is being held in a foreign country and not being released to you despite your demands, on that day, will you sanction that it is a court that needs to decide if you may have your child back?
148 posted on 12/17/2001 7:28:35 AM PST by thusevertotyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I think you and I will disagree here, but to me it's enough that Juan Miguel asked for his boy back. To contermplate whether this was his idea or Castro's is ceratinly noble in intent but goes beyond our responsibility - Again, when your boy is held in another country, I would say that noone need know your reasons for asking for your boy back
149 posted on 12/17/2001 7:32:40 AM PST by thusevertotyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
Yes the courts got involved, but should they have? Asked another way - on the day that your child is being held in a foreign country and not being released to you despite your demands, on that day, will you sanction that it is a court that needs to decide if you may have your child back

The courts and the legal system got involved the day Elian came to this country. That's the rub - and a court just doesn't drop the case without due process once they get involved. But the Clinton Administration destroyed due process with the raid - perhaps you can show ME the legal standing for the raid. Hint - I've studied a lot of the immigration law in the matter, two of my closest friends are award-winning immigration attorneys, so don't just mumble something about parental rights - you also have the fact that Elian was a refugee from another country and the INS and immigration law was also a significant factor, as the 11th Circuit made clear when they explained to the Clinton Administration that the relevant law said ANY ALIEN could apply for asylum. Not necessarily receive asylum, but apply for it. And once an alien applied for asylum, the law prohibited a change in guardianship, to prevent the INS from shopping an alien to a guardian less interested in pursuing the asylum claim. That is why the Clinton Administration had to act - to stop that mechanism.

150 posted on 12/17/2001 7:33:52 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
so if YOUR child soneday is in a foreign country, and someone decides they think the child is better off there, and takes custody and wants to file for asylum, then you will be ok with all of this being turned over to a foreign court? Dont say it cant or wont happen. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

If your answer is yes, then we can agree to disagree and go our seperate ways. If your answer is no, it's hypocrasy

151 posted on 12/17/2001 7:37:43 AM PST by thusevertotyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: william wallace
bttt
152 posted on 12/17/2001 7:39:26 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
but to me it's enough that Juan Miguel asked for his boy back. To contermplate whether this was his idea or Castro's is ceratinly noble in intent but goes beyond our responsibility - Again, when your boy is held in another country, I would say that noone need know your reasons for asking for your boy back

What if someone lived in the former East Germany - and risked their life to get their son to freedom. And then the Stasi comes to their door and says to use the West German legal system to get him back or else all his relatives would go to prison. If you were an immigration judge in West Germany, wouldn't you consider that relevant towards the child's return? Or would you just rubber-stamp it without an investigation?

That is the point of allowing any alien to apply for asylum - to let the courts sort such matters out. If this were a simple domestic custody issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact that Juan was never free to travel around the country without Castro's goons by him speaks volumes - if Juan could have gone to a court on his own free will and spoken his intentions, then I would have a lot less of a problem with the end result. But we will never know, because Reno and Clinton short-circuited due process to appease Castro. Clinton's actions had NOTHING to do with Elian, and everything to do with Clinton's personal political agenda, whatever that was.

153 posted on 12/17/2001 7:39:47 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
If your answer is yes, then we can agree to disagree and go our seperate ways. If your answer is no, it's hypocrasy

If I were from a tyrannical foreign country, it would be in my and my child's best interests to have the matter handled by a country following the rule of law. Now, YOU ANSWER this question - are you absolutely positive that it was Juan's personal intention to bring Elian back to Cuba and was under no pressure from Castro?

154 posted on 12/17/2001 7:41:37 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
It is not for me or any judge to decide that a person's politics or country of origin negate their rights of parenthood. To me, until such time as a parent has committed a crime, their right of parenthood is SACRED, not to be violated, even if done so in the name of ending political repression.
155 posted on 12/17/2001 7:44:04 AM PST by thusevertotyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
It is not for me or any judge to decide that a person's politics or country of origin negate their rights of parenthood. To me, until such time as a parent has committed a crime, their right of parenthood is SACRED, not to be violated, even if done so in the name of ending political repression.

Once again, are you absolutely sure that Juan was acting on his own free will in demanding that Elian be returned to Cuba? Castro (and communist regimes in general) have a history of using relatives as hostages and pawns in such matters? Did you ever see Juan free to move about in this country? Did he show up in person at the court to make his case? THAT IS THE REASON for due process and court hearings in asylum matters.

156 posted on 12/17/2001 7:46:06 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
No, I am not sure, but it is irrelevent. To presume that we can negate Juan Miguel's right of parenthood because we feel that his decisions may be coerced - we are not so high and mighty to presume to act this way

Your answer about your child in a repressive system tells me what YOUR choice would have been. So noted .... Can you grant another parent the right to make a DIFFERENT choice?

157 posted on 12/17/2001 7:46:23 AM PST by thusevertotyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I dont feel it is for us to decide if he was coerced. He should know the consequances of his actions - i.e. - ask for the boy and the boy goes back to a repressive regime - b - say let the boy stay and face punishment from Castro. Perhaps this means that it would have taken an act of sacrifice of Juan Miguel's part to do what was best for Elian. Freedom is not free ..... but it is not for us to judge what Juan Miguel should have done
158 posted on 12/17/2001 7:48:43 AM PST by thusevertotyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: thusevertotyrants
I dont feel it is for us to decide if he was coerced.

Then how do you know that returning Elian was the parent's will? That's your problem - you demand that the parent's will be followed, that it is an absolute right, and then you turn around and claim it is irrelevant to determine what the parent's will is. That is a complete contradiction.

159 posted on 12/17/2001 7:51:14 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Along these lines - I would bet that Elian's mother might have said let what happen to me happen but my boy will not be brought back to Castro - these decisions regarding nobility and sacrifice are for the individual and though we may admire them in some cases and question them in others, it is not for us to judge
160 posted on 12/17/2001 7:51:27 AM PST by thusevertotyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson