Only Chess
16 Jul 04
22 Jul 04
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat's the relevance of that? Is there some suggestion that the foreign affairs power can't be used to abrogate pre-existing contracts?
In another thread in the Debates forum, I asked the question whether the Executive Order applying sanctions against Yugoslavia, dated June 6, 1992, was promulgated before or after the Fischer-Spassky match was announced.
Surely if the executive orders sanctions against a foreign nation, the mere fact that some U.S. company has a contract with that country doesn't permit them to continue to do business there.
(although... the contracts clause... but surely the courts wouldn't hold the u.s. company liable on political question grounds or some similar deferential to the executive idea.)
22 Jul 04
Originally posted by paultopiaFirst, thank you David Tebb for the information. Second, while it is now a hypothetical, Fischer is charged with a crime of "performing a contract". Making an existing contract for a single transaction illegal would violate the ex post facto clause in my view (the impairment of contracts clause is applicable to the states, not the feds). What courts would rule I don't know; 20th century courts have bent over backward to give the executive powers undreamed of by the Framers.
What's the relevance of that? Is there some suggestion that the foreign affairs power can't be used to abrogate pre-existing contracts?
Surely if the executive orders sanctions against a foreign nation, the mere fact that some U.S. company has a contract with that country doesn't permit them to continue to do business there.
(although... the ...[text shortened]... company liable on political question grounds or some similar deferential to the executive idea.)
22 Jul 04
Originally posted by no1marauderhmm...
First, thank you David Tebb for the information. Second, while it is now a hypothetical, Fischer is charged with a crime of "performing a contract". Making an existing contract for a single transaction illegal would violate the ex post facto clause in my view (the impairment of contracts clause is applicable to the states, not the feds). What c ...[text shortened]... entury courts have bent over backward to give the executive powers undreamed of by the Framers.
It would seem to only be an ex post facto crime if it were criminalized after it was "performed" -- presumably, if Fisher entered into the contract, then the embargo was imposed, and he failed to perform the contract, he wouldn't be subject to prosecution.
22 Jul 04
Originally posted by paultopiaOK, paultopia for the prosecution, no1Marauder for the defense (maybe this should go in the debate forum)! I would argue that for the government to make the performance of a single transaction contract illegal after that contract was already entered into violates the intent of the ex post facto clause. It would make the performance of something you were already legally committed to do a crime. In some countries, the violation of a contract is a criminal offense. So to add another hypothetical to our already existing hypothetical: Suppose Yugoslavia made it a crime to breach a contract and the Fish complied with the US executive order? Could Yugoslavia demand Fischer's extradition from a 3rd country that Fischer happened to be in? Then he be in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
hmm...
It would seem to only be an ex post facto crime if it were criminalized after it was "performed" -- presumably, if Fisher entered into the contract, then the embargo was imposed, and he failed to perform the contract, he wouldn't be subject to prosecution.
22 Jul 04
so bobby violated the u.n.sanctions,since when does the u.s give a damn about the u.n.? onl ywhen it suits them,right?And now they are trying to deport this man,who is a great chessplayer to the states,a man ,who is also mentallly ill and does not need a prison but needs treatment. Dantes
22 Jul 04
Originally posted by dantesSince when did the US care about UN? Since when did US stop caring about UN is a better question....
so bobby violated the u.n.sanctions,since when does the u.s give a damn about the u.n.? onl ywhen it suits them,right?And now they are trying to deport this man,who is a great chessplayer to the states,a man ,who is also mentallly ill and does not need a prison but needs treatment. Dantes
When Bush was elected.
What a mess! Bobby Fischer is a whack job, and he does need help, not jail time.
I don't think he wants help... do you?
P-
22 Jul 04
Originally posted by dantesI agree...he definitely needs treatment...alot of treatment as he went off the deep end a long time ago...when I watched the movie Searching for Bobby Fischer I couldn't help but think that Bobby is looking for him too...I like what Kasparov wrote in The Wall Street Journal about Fischer's problems.. "Despite the ugliness of his decline, Bobby Fischer deserves to be remembered for the great things he did for chess and for his immortal games. I would prefer to focus on not letting his personal tradegy become a tradegy for chess".
[b]And now they are trying to deport this man,who is a great chessplayer to the states,a man ,who is also mentallly ill and does not need a prison but needs treatment.
24 Jul 04
Originally posted by no1marauder"for the prosecution" -- there's a phrase I don't ever expect to utter in the real world :-)
OK, paultopia for the prosecution, no1Marauder for the defense
The illegality in question, however, is not in the contract, it is in the performance of the contract. Fisher is not being punished for an action that he has already taken at the time of the enactment of the executive order: he is being punished for his acts after the executive order is already in effect.
Perhaps a hypothetical of my own is in order. A U.S. oil company (lets call them "Unocal"😉 has an agreement with a foreign company (lets call them "Afghanistan"😉 to run a pipeline. Suddenly, relations detiroirate between the U.S. and Afghanistan. The President, in the exercise of his pretty much absolute power to set the foreign policy of the United States, decides that it is against the national interest for people to be trading with Afghanistan, and, under this foreign policy power as well as power granted him by Congress (in exercise of their power to regulate foreign trade), decrees that nobody shall trade with Afghanistan, or otherwise contribute to their economy. Breach of contract is a crime in Afghanistan. Can Unocal continue to build/operate their pipeline?
Perhaps a slightly sharper hypothetical. Consider a U.S. arms dealer. Lets call him "Prescott." Prescott has numerous commercial expectancies and/or contracts with another country. Lets call it "Germany." Unfortunately, Germany, as it is wont to do every few decades, gets taken over by a lunatic who wants to conquer the world. Learning of this, Congress declares war against Germany. Breach of contract is a crime in Germany. Can Prescott continue to sell arms to Germany?
I would submit that the result in all three cases must be, sadly, the same consequence for Bobby, Prescott and Unocal: no more trading on pain of criminal prosecution.
There seems to be no principled way to apply the ex post facto clause to contracts made, but not performed, before economic sanctions but not apply it to contracts made, but not performed, before a declaration of war. Yet clearly one may not sell arms to a nation at war with the U.S., all previous contracts notwithstanding.
I would also point out that long-standing black-letter law in every U.S. jurisdiction indicates that a contract with a criminal subject matter is void. Hence, it would appear that, under U.S. contract law, there would be no enforceable contract where performance would violate lawfully enacted sanctions.
(please excuse any and all grammatical, punctuational, or logical glitches... I'm highly sleep deprived at the moment)
and now rhp is "down for maintainance" so I'll hopefully post this one of these days.
07 Dec 04
Unfortunately, Germany, as it is wont to do every few decades, gets taken over by a lunatic who wants to conquer the world.
LOL!
In the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, Fischer would need to choose his allegience, and suffer the penalties of the opposing system. He should probably go live in the allied country so the other one can't get him simply be demanding extradition.