Things We Lost in the Fire: (The Assault on the Constitution)

Village Voice ^ | September 11 - 17, 2002 | Alisa Solomon

[dead]

Then I guess you must have found evidence of her supporting the second amendment, or were you lying when you stated:

I'll read this as soon as I see that the author has also written and published an equally-scathing article about the attacks on the Second Amendment.

Please post her comments supporting the second amendment that you found. I suspected she probably never did such a thing, being a lefty, but I wouldn't want to accuse you of lying.

[verity]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[stop_fascism]

I'm having difficulty locating "her points about the trampling of the rights of US citizens..." Could you identify the most egregious examples?

[Dr. Frank fan]

or were you lying when you stated: [...]

Try to work on your reading comprehension. In the statement you quoted from me, I do not actually say that I didn't read the article. Rather, I state some hypothetical conditions under which I will read the article in the future. I remained silent on the issue of whether or to what extent I had already read it.

If you must know (and you seem quite interested), here's a little diary of the Reading Experience I had with this article: I read about the first three paragraphs, skimmed past the section on "Immigrants" to the one on "Checks and Balances", skimmed the one after that, skipped down to the part where she whines about library books, and got very bored with it all. Then I did a little search for the word "second" or "gun" and found nothing, upon which I made my post.

So you see, I read enough of it to know that this chick doesn't give a rat's ass about much of the Constitution. Only some parts (mostly all those protections for illegal immigrants which she seems to think are contained in it). Now you also see that you no longer get to accuse me of not having enough information to make this claim. I do have enough information to make this claim. (If you disagree, then you're going to have to point to the part of the article where she bemoans gun control laws or laments the extensions of federal power which have been effected by ignoring the 10th Amendment, at the behest of... well, people like her, presumably.)

[dead]

I'm having difficulty locating "her points about the trampling of the rights of US citizens..." Could you identify the most egregious examples?

It wouldn’t be too hard, if you would read the article:

monitor political and religious gatherings, and jail Americans indefinitely without trial and with legal representation…
enforcement officials can force librarians (and booksellers) to hand over records of who checked out what books, and what Web sites they visited without the high bar of "probable cause" required for searches under the Fourth Amendment. Librarians, furthermore, must not tell anyone such records have been requested—not even the patron being investigated. If they refuse to fork over the records, they can go to jail… "red squads"—cops who infiltrate political groups and collect data on their members, even when there's no illegal activity…
Under his (Ridge’s) watch, legitimate protests were broken up, their leaders were arrested, and bail was set as high as $1 million…
the FISA court said it had documented more than 75 cases of the FBI misleading the court in trying to justify its need for wiretaps and other electronic surveillance…

[dead]

So you wrote "I'll read this as soon as..." AFTER you had already read it? Thanks for the clarification, Clinton.

BTW, I would welcome this woman's (or any other human's) support for the 2nd amendment, but I don't think her support or non-support for that right has any bearing on her factual assertions regarding the government's actions in other areas.

I know 2nd amendment supporters who want the government to remove Howard Stern from the air (Brent Bozell for example.) But I don't think his idiotic misinterpretation of the first amendment makes the facts he cites in his columns about the 2nd untrue. Facts are facts, as long as they are true.

Did you find some untruths in this article? (Incidently, I found at least one, though it was very minor in the grand scheme of things. Bill Maher was not "fired over comments" his contract was not renewed because he had no ratings.)

[Sally II]

That's what Sacramento Bee publisher Janis Besler Heaphy wanted to tell graduates at California State University when she was invited to give a commencement address last December. "The Constitution makes it our right to challenge government policies," she said. "Our culture makes it our duty. Raising issues. Asking questions. Debating options." But the students didn't hear her. They drowned her out and drove her from the stage with their patriotic shouting.

Personally, I tend to think that booing a person off a stage in its own way is an excersise in democracy, raising questions, and debating opinions. Some people just don't like voices of descent when their ideals are being descented. Asking questions is one thing. But these people who get all excited over their right to "question" forget that sometimes it is very important to QUESTION THE QUESTION!!!

[dead]

Personally, I tend to think that booing a person off a stage in its own way is an excersise in democracy, raising questions, and debating opinions.

In a way it is, but it’s not a very effective way to air the facts and get to the bottom of an issue.

Ask Ann Coulter, Clarence Thomas, or David Horowitz.

[stop_fascism]

The fisa court said that 74 of the misleading events occurred in the Clinton administration long before 9/11. It even stated that the FBI had improved its procedures under the present administration. It then used these cases to block the implementation of new wire-tap rules. So this is actually an example of our civil liberties being protected, not trampled upon.

I believe that the book store/library provisions were thrown out of the Partiot act. Am I wrong about that?

I don't recall reading about any legitimate protests being broken up (by government sponsored brown shirts, no doubt). Again, I could have missed these reports. I'd be interested in the details.

However, it seems that the article is a compilation of misrepresentations and half-truths.

[stop_fascism]

Students interviewed afterwards said they booed because they wanted a traditional commencement address, not a smug little leftist political diatribe. They were rude (as was the speaker), but they weren't making a political statement.

[m1911]

A quick look through the results of a google search on the author's name brings up lots of stuff on her immigrant and Israel-Palestine positions, along with theatre review stuff, but she doesn't seem to talk much about the 2nd.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I don't think her support or non-support for that right has any bearing on her factual assertions regarding the government's actions in other areas.

What is a "factual assertion"? An assertion which is also a fact? Well of course, if some of the assertions she makes are also facts, then her 2nd Amendment position wouldn't change that.

Of course, the extent to which the assertions she made in this article are also facts remains an open question. Furthermore, and more to the point, she can make all the "factual assertions" she wants to in the process of citing this or that government action. Maybe Government is indeed doing X. But she still needs to explain how, and in what manner, doing X violates the Constitution in order to support her "assault on the Constitution" thesis.

I mean, oh boy, is she full of Factual Assertions. For example,

Midwood, Brooklyn, home to some 150,000 Pakistanis, saw two planeloads of its young men sent home in August after long detentions by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Did this happen? Sure. I certainly have no reason to doubt it. But was this unconstitutional? Was this even illegal? Were those "young men" in fact illegal aliens? She doesn't say. She doesn't even seem to care. But it matters.

I'll skip down past a bunch of hand-wringing, irrelevant historical data, professor-quoting, to the next significant Factual Assertion about what government is doing. Here it is:

On September 14, Congress quickly passed the Authorization for Use of U.S. Military Force resolution, granting the president carte blanche to wage war against anybody he deemed responsible for the hijackings.

Again, this Factual Assertion appears to be completely correct, I guess. But again, so what? Was this action unconstitutional? She doesn't say how or why. She doesn't seem to care. Evidently she just dislikes it, which is not the same as an argument for unconstitutionality. But again, it matters.

How about Factual Assertion #3:

And in October, with hardly enough time even to read the 342-page document, much less debate it, lawmakers rushed through sweeping anti-terrorism legislation whose very name and jingoistic acronym—the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (or USA Patriot) Act—made it unassailable.

Once again, I'm sure it's Factual up the wazoo. But unconstitutional how, exactly? She doesn't say, she doesn't care.

Is this woman arguing that the government is "assaulting the Constitution", or just that it's Doing A Bunch of Stuff She Disapproves Of? It's not even clear that she knows the difference.

This, you see, is where I start to lose interest in her opinion. For example, I start to wonder how consistent is she in her great love for the Constitution. A cursory search of her article and writing history reveals that she cares quite a bit about public library book records, but not one whit about Second Amendment rights, for example.

So why am I supposed to respect her (I'll say it again) disingenuous worrying here over assaults on the Constitution, and the crocodile tears she is crying?

You are right, she does factually cite some government actions of which she disapproves: Why, government is doing X, Y, and Z! she exclaims. What she doesn't do is really explain why she thinks those actions X, Y, and Z are unconstitutional. Some of them may be, and some may not, but that's not what she's writing about: she's just writing about stuff she disapproves of, in the end. And you'll please forgive me if I don't lap up this woman's disingenuous attempt to wrap up her own personal opinions and whims up in the Constitution - when convenient - to give them weight.

Of course I'd have to eat my words if it came out that there is some instance in which her conception of the Constitution does not also miraculously coincide with her opinions. For example, if she hadn't implied in the article that it's unconstitutional for the government to expel illegal aliens (which it isn't). For another example, if she would recognize the existence of the Second Amendment, instead of writing in articles like this that Al Gore's neglecting to talk about gun control in Colorado means that democracy isn't working.

[Jefferson Adams]

Excellent article. Amazing how it's gotten to the point now where even the far lefties are waking up. I don't agree with them about most things, but this one is right on the mark.

[Jefferson Adams]

It's clear: the government is using 9/11 as an excuse to impose an imperial tyranny, while doing absolutely nothing for our security (notice the open borders).

Bingo. If they REALLY wanted to "fight terrorism," dealing with the borders would have been step number one. And removing the illegal immigrants from the Middle East already here would have been step number two.

Neither has even been considered, whch IMO suggests beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that "fighting terrorism" is not what's going on. Rather, we're seeing a sped-up implementation of the New World Order, made possible by 9/11 - regardless of who was behind 9/11.

[Joe Brower]

The Bill of Rights wasn't cancelled. It was turned into a "living document" and redefined out of existence.

To a great extent, yes.

"Arguing that the words of the Constitution have no fixed meaning is tantamount to arguing that we have no Constitution; a Constitution serves no purpose if the branches of government it is supposed to limit can define their own powers." -- W. James Antle III

[Sally II]

In a way it is, but it’s not a very effective way to air the facts and get to the bottom of an issue. Ask Ann Coulter, Clarence Thomas, or David Horowitz.

True. But then again, a university commencement is not a place to air facts and get to the bottom of an issue. I think people like David Horowitz and Ann Coulter are regularly invited to various places to discuss particular issues. I can't say for a fact, but I imagine they allow a question and answer period. I've yet to go to a commencement speach where audience members or students were allowed to debate an issue. It's simply not the venue. When the editor of the Sacramento Bee took advantage of her position as commencement speaker to blast the government --which I think was completelely inappropriate-- what outlet was there for the audience or the students to give a cogent argument against her ideas? Of course there is none because it's a commencement ceremony, not a freakin' public debate! In that environment, I think the audience and students, who clearly didn't go to that event to hear any one-sided government bashing, had every right to publically boo her off the stage.