I've been thinking about the US v. Comstock ruling, too. Beyond the issue of the constitutional rights of pedophiles (which you point to at the end of your vlog), I've been intrigued by the notion that this ruling can lay the foundation for health care: if Congress has a "broad authority" to pass laws that are "rationally related" to its constitutional aims, then states would not be able to argue that health care mandates are unconstitutional. Yes? No? I'd love to hear your perspective on this wrinkle.
This is also related to the how we treat non-citizen terrorism suspects. (Apparently the underwear bomber has been moving through the legal system quite appropriately). Certainly there is an argument that only citizenship earns constitutional protections, but the US has been fully willing to ignore the Geneva convention and other precedent for how it treats terrorist suspects. I don't have any problem with letting actual terrorists rot in grungy cell forever, but there is something seriously disconcerting about doing that to people who are merely suspects.
In that regard, I think you hit the nail on the head. The only reason Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, black prisons in Eastern Europe, and transferring prisoners to torture happy Egypt is because we as a nation are frightened to death of terrorism. Some of that fear is rational but much of it is fear-mongering and related directly to public opinion and the court's ruling on Comstock. Above all else, safety. I'll come out and say what you won't: the founders would have been ashamed.
I've been thinking about the US v. Comstock ruling, too. Beyond the issue of the constitutional rights of pedophiles (which you point to at the end of your vlog), I've been intrigued by the notion that this ruling can lay the foundation for health care: if Congress has a "broad authority" to pass laws that are "rationally related" to its constitutional aims, then states would not be able to argue that health care mandates are unconstitutional. Yes? No? I'd love to hear your perspective on this wrinkle.
ReplyDeleteThis is also related to the how we treat non-citizen terrorism suspects. (Apparently the underwear bomber has been moving through the legal system quite appropriately). Certainly there is an argument that only citizenship earns constitutional protections, but the US has been fully willing to ignore the Geneva convention and other precedent for how it treats terrorist suspects. I don't have any problem with letting actual terrorists rot in grungy cell forever, but there is something seriously disconcerting about doing that to people who are merely suspects.
ReplyDeleteIn that regard, I think you hit the nail on the head. The only reason Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, black prisons in Eastern Europe, and transferring prisoners to torture happy Egypt is because we as a nation are frightened to death of terrorism. Some of that fear is rational but much of it is fear-mongering and related directly to public opinion and the court's ruling on Comstock. Above all else, safety. I'll come out and say what you won't: the founders would have been ashamed.