Originally posted by jgvaccaroNo I don't. The difference is you don't have a fundamental right not to pay taxes; taxes are a necessary sharing of the obligations of a society. Now if the government adopted a tax that was sufficiently confiscatory to violate the "takings" clause of the US Constitution i.e. the tax was so high that a person was reduced to impoverishment by it, I think the avoidance of such a tax would be legally justified.
No1marauder, do you think I should be allowed to not pay income tax if I believe the income tax is unjust?
The point is there is a higher law than the ones temporary occupants of power pass; and that law, the law of natural rights, is what the Framers of this country believed in. Laws passed in violation of our fundamental rights are invalid and void; you not only shouldn't have an obligation to obey them, as a free man you have an affirmative obligation to resist them.
I say again that the right to travel to another country was recognized by our Framers as a fundamental human right to be circumscribed only in dire circumstances. The desire to meddle in another country's civil war is not a valid reason to restrict the freedom of Americans. Therefore, the law was void from the moment it was passed and no free man should be punished for not following a law in such a basic conflict with everything this country was founded on. Clear?
Screw the Law! Free the Fish!
I didn't see your last post until after my last post. I would address one point: Fischer's motive. To me it is completely irrelevant whether he played chess in Yugoslavia as a noble act of civil disobedience, whether it was the place he could make the most money or simply to thumb his nose at the US government or for any other reason. Whatever he did it for, I believe the law was invalid (see my last post) and, therefore, he should not be punished for not following such a law when it was an affront to the basic ideals this country was founded on.
Screw the Law! Free the Fish!
I'm trying to find out if the Fischer-Spassky match was announced first in 1992 and then Executive Order 12810 putting sanctions in place was done in response or vice versa. The Order was dated June 5, 1992 and the match started on September 1, 1992, but obviously there must have been a formal announcement before then. Can anybody direct me to a site stating when the Fischer-Spassky rematch was first announced in 1992?
Here is the "Right to Travel" bit from the Articles of Confederation.
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.
If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.
A few points:
1) As I understand it, this pertains soley to States within the Union, not travel from one country to the next. The purpose of this was to help them, who were then sort of an entity between states and countries, understand the rules of interaction amongst each other.
2) It is important to note that fugitives from justice do not have this right.
3) The Articles of Confederation were supplanted by the Constitution, and are no longer binding in any way.
4) The Constitution does not give any explicit "Right to Travel," but court cases uphold a presumptive right to travel: see Saenz v Roe, section 2 (supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZS.html). You will note, however, that this pertains, again to state to state travel. No doubt, however, these do not apply to fugitives, like Fischer. Case Law supports allowing the government to ban its citizens from traveling to a place when there is what they consider to be a just reason for doing so.
The Framers had lots of good ideas, and also a few bad ones. They were smart enough to write documents that were sufficiently vague that allowed for interpretation and reinterpretation as cultural context required. (Someone observed that perhaps the reason for this vagueness is because they couldn't all agree on specifics.)
While Yugoslavia sanctions haven't really been challenged much, the presumptive "right to travel" to Cuba has been challenged an awful lot. This website has a lot of great information, a lot of it better articulated than Maurauder's arguments: http://www.ibike.org/cuba/ofac/law.htm
All of this having been said, people who break even unjust laws are subject to prosecution. If a person really really really feels that a law is unjust, they have two choices: 1) Form a lobby, class-action suit, coalition, non-profit, or whatever and fight it through the legal channels put in place by the Framers of this countries legal system, or 2) Break it, maybe get caught, and if so, fight it through the legal channels put in place by the Framers.... Read my comments previously about Rosa Parks.
Fischer will be given his right as affored by the Constitution and Amendments to a trial with presumed innocence.
I am glad that Marauder finally articulated a fundemantal of his argument. For those of you missed it, it's that the Framers believed in a "the law of natural rights," in this case the natural right to travel.
However, since there is no document written first person by higher powers, people have, since time immemorial, argued about what constitutes one's natural rights (or, more often, why one group should be entitled to more rights than another). What our forefathers considered "natural law" in 15th c. Europe, what the Framers considered "natural law" and what we consider "natural law" has changed. Or I should say "normative natural law" because, obviously, people even on this site do not agree on what is natural law.
In any event, Fischer indictment has little to do with the traveling to Yugoslavia, but the doing business with that country. So the issue of having a natural right to travel is somewhat moot. It's not about the travel, but the money he allowed that country to raise. Do we have a "natural right" to do business with anyone we want (transcending the 'unjust' embargo), especially when we know that the business we do directly harms other human beings? Sounds like Bobby Fischer was impinging upon the natural rights of other people to me.
When Marauder mentioned that he was half kidding about "going to war," I got to thinking. In discussion with a friend, we agreed that sanctions are a sort of passive war, instead of hitting them with bombs, hit them in the pocket. In a way, we were in a silent war with Yugoslavia, kind of a siege.
Marauder makes one very good point, I must admit:
Laws passed in violation of our fundamental rights are invalid and void; you not only shouldn't have an obligation to obey them, as a free man you have an affirmative obligation to resist them.
Yes, I agree, BUT a person must recognize that by acting in a civilly disobedient manner, you are still subject to prosecution. It is during that time that you have to make the case that the law is in violation of your fundamental rights. Perhaps the Fish should be freed, but he has to make the case that the law is unjust.
It is my opinion that he cannot do this. Perhaps Marauder feels differently.
Marauder,
Here is at least some of the information you wanted.
On September 1, 1992, Bobby Fischer came out of his 20 year retirement and gave a press conference in Yugoslavia. He pulled out an order from the U.S. Treasury Department warning him that he would be violating U.N sanctions if he played Chess in Yugoslavia. He spit on the order and now faces ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine if he returns to the U.S. In addition, he must forfeit his $3.65 million to the U.S. Treasury and forfeit 10% of any match royalties earned. On September 30, Bobby Fischer began his rematch with Boris Spassky in Sveti Stefan, Yugoslavia. The match was organized by banker Jedzimir Vasiljevic. On November 11, Fischer won the match with 10 wins, 5 losses, and 15 draws. He received $3.65 million for his winnings and Spassky received $1.5 million.
Originally posted by nemesioNo, that is NOT the information I wanted. I am still trying to find out whether the Executive Order applying sanctions predates Fischer's agreement to play the match. I can't find this information online; perhaps someone could come up with some reference material on when the match was announced during 1992. I'm extremely curious has to whether it the government put the sanctions in place after the announcement of the match and if that is true, whether the announcement of the match was related to the decision to issue the Executive Order.
Marauder,
Here is at least some of the information you wanted.
On September 1, 1992, Bobby Fischer came out of his 20 year retirement and gave a press conference in Yugoslavia. He pulled out an order from the U.S. Treasury Department warning him that he would be violating U.N sanctions if he played Chess in Yugoslavia. He spit on the order and no ...[text shortened]... 15 draws. He received $3.65 million for his winnings and Spassky received $1.5 million.
I've made my points about what this country's founder's philosophy was; even a cursory glance at their writings will show that they believed some things were beyond the legitimate power of government to restrict. The Declaration of Independence is a good place to start; you know "inalienable rights" "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" etc. You apparently feel that's just a crock, has have 20th century courts which have upheld various travel bans(particulary Cuba). I believe they and you are wrong, there are basic rights which are easily recognized and that the right to travel for whatever reason, even to make a lot of money somewhere was considered then and even now to be one of those rights.
As a curious side note, an article in the Boston Herald reported that Fischer had been given a new passport in 1997 almost 5 years after his indictment. This passport was not revoked until December, 2003 not long after the Fish had been on Flipino radio giving what could be charitably called a negative view of the United States and Jewish people. HMMM, I'll be curious to hear more details, but it seems that it is very possible what has triggered his arrest was not a dozen year old chess match, but his using a right I assume even you would agree a person has; the right of free speech (or are you against that too?).
Lastly, my memory of the Articles of Confederation provision was obviously faulty and you are correct that the provision therein refers only to interstate travel. Of course, no rights are specifically enumerated there so the fact that they didn't mention a right to travel in the Articles didn't mean they thought it didn't exist. And come on, give me a gotcha on the Tom Paine thing! He fled the country he was born ahead of the law; he wasn't willing to face a jury and go to prison for exercising his rights! Why should the Fish? And there is this thing called "prosecutorial discretion" which should apply here before the taxpayers waste a couple of million on a circus trial regarding a chess match!
Screw the Law! Free the Fish!