What are these special and magical freedoms that only the US possesses?

[HsvMike]

Chielgirl, in your OP, you want us to tell you what freedoms the United States has compared to other countries or the world for that matter. But yet when we compare / contrast countries, you tell us it is off thread and not to do it. ????????

[irwin]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Nice, in theory. Reality is a bit different. There are school districts in Ohio where there is required Christian prayer in public schools. You can’t argue with it and have any friends in the schools; your parents could lose their jobs if they complain.

Please cite the specific school districts where this occurs. If these are public schools, where the prayers are lead publicly in school sponsored events, this is clearly unconstitutional. There was a case in the Supreme Court that found against a small town school district in rural West Texas for leading prayers at high school football games - Bible belt country. I hardly think Ohio is any different or more conservative.

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Please there are many limitations on freedom of speech in America. Again, I will ask you to start your own thread if you want to do comparative studies with other countries.

That is clearly NOT THE OP and you are OFF-TOPIC.

Please see my response to your private message. You are asking what "special" freedoms the US has. Again, basic logic states that this calls for a comparison. How can one tell what is special and what is not without a comparison? The word "special" donates that something is different from the norm. Therefore, a comparison is clearly logical and justified. As I am hardly alone in making such comparisons on this thread, clearly others agree as well.

Originally Posted by chielgirl

And George Bush has done the same in the US, there are no checks and balances.
Please discuss the specifics about the US or start your own thread.

You call for specifics? Rather ironic since you fail to provide any yourself; platitudes and talking points.

But if you really want a specific case that is evidence that checks and balances are alive and well in the US look at the recent Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (if you wish to look it up and read it the cite is 126 S. Ct. 2749). In this case Bin Ladin's driver, probably one of the most unpopular individuals in the US, sued the government of the United States (the most powerful government the earth has ever seen) and the driver won in the Supreme Court. And, amazingly enough, afterwards the decision was followed. The public was not protesting or rioting in the street; it was accepted. That is checks and balances in action.

Look, I know what you are doing here. You don't want a real discussion on the "special" rights of the US. You want a forum to lash out emotionally at people you see as flag waving "love it or leave it" Americans. I share your disgust for such ignorant people. On the other hand, I am not naive in thinking that there aren't benefits to such things as separation of powers and the Bill of Rights that are enshrined in the constitution.

Again, there are things that the US can learn from other countries; there are special things about other countries that the US can adopt. But there are also special things about the US.

Again, good day.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Nice, in theory. Reality is a bit different. There are school districts in Ohio where there is required Christian prayer in public schools. You can’t argue with it and have any friends in the schools; your parents could lose their jobs if they complain.


Please there are many limitations on freedom of speech in America. Again, I will ask you to start your own thread if you want to do comparative studies with other countries.

That is clearly NOT THE OP and you are OFF-TOPIC.



And George Bush has done the same in the US, there are no checks and balances.
Please discuss the specifics about the US or start your own thread.

What school districts in Ohio require school prayer? How do they require it? Is their a rule that says you must bow your head and say amen? I'd like to see that rule. Provide the link. I'll pass it on the ACLU. People don't have to complain to school authorities, lawyers abound in our society.

Yes, there are limits on free speech in the United States. There are limits everywhere on demonstrations and protests, because there has to be a balance. No one group's views should outweigh another group's interests. Anti-abortion protesters have to stay a certain number of feet away from a clinic's doors because they aren't allowed to obstruct people's access to healthcare. The Secret Service has restrictions on keeping protesters away from the President because of fears for his personal safety. Do the restrictions sometimes fail to strike a balance, sometimes favoring the President and his party? Yep, sometimes protests are unlawfully denied access to a venue, and the event goes on, and there is not time for judicial intercession. The pushing back and forth over these rights is an inherent part of the process.

The checks and the balances do exist. I think Bush has abused his powers, and Congress should have pushed back, but the political reality is that Bush began his administration with a Republican dominated Congress that acceded to Bush's wishes, and even though the Democrats now have control, it is by so slim a margin that they are unable to fully exercise the checks that could contain Bush. Over and over, it has been the judicial branch that has acted to rein in Bush, not the legislative branch. With the exception of the DOJ, the judicial branch has acted. Extending Presidential power was something this administration clearly hoped to do from its onset. Cheney had publicly expressed his dismay over the limits placed on the President dating from Nixon's resignation. But the scales will swing back, just like they did after Lincoln's administration.

And to respond to your OP, the Bill of Rights does set us apart from other countries. The intent of the Founding Fathers to protect the individual against the majority has nothing to do with democracy, but everything to do with freedom. The presumption of innocence in our legal system, the access that any citizen has to the legislative process, the specific language in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, is designed to protect the individual. Adams and Jefferson and the other architects of the system recognized that there was a cost to this design. That criminals would go free, and they endorsed that price, they thought that the freedom of one innocent man was worth the damage that 100 freed criminals would cause. Over time we have shifted more and more away from that original ideal, we discuss things like the "greater good" and pass laws to protect the public at the expense of individual liberties, doesn't mean that those original ideals have lost all meaning. These things are still up for discussion, people still argue passionately for their rights, civil disobedience is alive and well in the United States. The Founding Fathers recognized from the very beginning that this would be a continuing struggle, they gave individuals the tools to make that struggle meaningful. It's up to the people to use them.

DC

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

What school districts in Ohio require school prayer? How do they require it? Is their a rule that says you must bow your head and say amen? I'd like to see that rule. Provide the link. I'll pass it on the ACLU. People don't have to complain to school authorities, lawyers abound in our society.

Let’s just say it’s in the general southeast Ohio area.

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Yes, there are limits on free speech in the United States. There are limits everywhere on demonstrations and protests, because there has to be a balance. No one group's views should outweigh another group's interests. Anti-abortion protesters have to stay a certain number of feet away from a clinic's doors because they aren't allowed to obstruct people's access to healthcare. The Secret Service has restrictions on keeping protesters away from the President because of fears for his personal safety. Do the restrictions sometimes fail to strike a balance, sometimes favoring the President and his party? Yep, sometimes protests are unlawfully denied access to a venue, and the event goes on, and there is not time for judicial intercession. The pushing back and forth over these rights is an inherent part of the process.

No one group's views should outweigh another group's interests. – see again, “free speech zones” for people who protest against the sitting president. This never happened until the current administration. I disagree that it’s an inherent part of the process, it’s a purposeful denial of civil rights. Why is it never his supporters who are denied access?

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The checks and the balances do exist. I think Bush has abused his powers, and Congress should have pushed back, but the political reality is that Bush began his administration with a Republican dominated Congress that acceded to Bush's wishes, and even though the Democrats now have control, it is by so slim a margin that they are unable to fully exercise the checks that could contain Bush. Over and over, it has been the judicial branch that has acted to rein in Bush, not the legislative branch. With the exception of the DOJ, the judicial branch has acted. Extending Presidential power was something this administration clearly hoped to do from its onset. Cheney had publicly expressed his dismay over the limits placed on the President dating from Nixon's resignation. But the scales will swing back, just like they did after Lincoln's administration.

Checks and balances have been neutered, mainly by this administration, but since the Reagan administration. We’ll take stuff over knowledge.

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

And to respond to your OP, the Bill of Rights does set us apart from other countries. The intent of the Founding Fathers to protect the individual against the majority has nothing to do with democracy, but everything to do with freedom. The presumption of innocence in our legal system, the access that any citizen has to the legislative process, the specific language in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, is designed to protect the individual. Adams and Jefferson and the other architects of the system recognized that there was a cost to this design. That criminals would go free, and they endorsed that price, they thought that the freedom of one innocent man was worth the damage that 100 freed criminals would cause. Over time we have shifted more and more away from that original ideal, we discuss things like the "greater good" and pass laws to protect the public at the expense of individual liberties, doesn't mean that those original ideals have lost all meaning. These things are still up for discussion, people still argue passionately for their rights, civil disobedience is alive and well in the United States. The Founding Fathers recognized from the very beginning that this would be a continuing struggle, they gave individuals the tools to make that struggle meaningful. It's up to the people to use them.

The bill of rights sets us apart, but what I see is a piece of paper since most of the rights have been watered down with over the past decades. We have more people in jail than any other industrialized country. We throw people in jail without charges; we torture, we have prisons in other countries. The list goes on.

Where is civil disobedience alive and well?

I think that this thread has run its course; I'll ask the moderator to close.

[NewToCA]

Based upon your request, and that the discussion appears to be drifting, this thread is closed.

[DC at the Ridge]

His supporters aren't denied access because they are his supporters. Bush and the GOP have done an outstanding job at keeping protests at arm's length. It's all about spin. But just because Bush has been so successful does not mean that he's the first. When women were marching for the right to vote, they frequently were arrested during demonstrations. When women marched for birth control they expected to be arrested. When the Ku Klux Klan announces it is going to have a parade, people will do all they can to stop it. Yet they have a right to free speech, too, don't they? Vetting audiences not just to assess risk but also to advance a political agenda isn't new. Anti-union politicians used to do it all the time. It doesn't make it right, but there is an interest in ensuring the safety of a sitting President. And it is a part of the process. The freedoms we are granted as United States citizens have to be fought for and defended, because the will of the majority, the tyranny of the mob, is always trying to tear away these individual rights. Just ask any smoker.

As for people in prison, yes, we've got lots of people in jail. Our society attempts to legislate societal problems like drug use and we end up criminalizing behavior and even imprisoning people who don't deserve it. I think the issue of whether and what drugs should be illegal and which should not really is a topic for another thread. The origins of criminalization of substances is also a separate topic. But these are part of the problem of democracy, and why the Bill of Rights is so important. As for the incidents of unlawful detention, or torture, or deportation; it's deplorable that such injustices do happen, but they have to be taken case by case, to understand why it happened and to stop it from happening in the future. If you are referring to waterboarding, that is an ongoing issue in the courts and the legislature. The fact remains, these things occur, but they get reported in the press, people do take action, court cases are filed and often redress is made. The system isn't perfect, but then no system is.

Checks and balances have not been rendered irrelevant, they have been thrown out of sync by this administration. Look up Lincoln's administration and how he exercised his executive war powers. Those checks and balances were out of sync throughout the Civil War, but they didn't die, after the war the checks and balances were reasserted, and they will be reasserted again after this President. Many people thought that during FDR's administration, that the checks and balances were absent. Most often, when the legislature fails to check the executive branch, the judicial rises to the occasion. It's a longer, more subtle balancing act when this happens, but it does happen.

As for civil disobedience, there are people who refuse to pay income taxes. There are people who light up cigarettes in public forums. There are people who refuse to get social security numbers. There are people who burn flags in cities where it is against the law. There are people who camp outside the President's ranch to protest the war and are carried away in handcuffs by law enforcement officers. There are people who grow and sell or give away medicinal marijuana. All cases of civil disobedience.

DC