Mr. Obama rudely criticized the Supreme Court for broadening First Amendment rights to corporations, which he said would lead to First Amendment rights for foreign corporations. Let me get this straight—it is all right to grant Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights to foreign terrorists who want to destroy the U.S., but granting First Amendment rights to foreign corporations, many of which have businesses in the U.S. and hire American workers, is wrong.
Roger L. Rice
Leesburg, Fla.
Friday, February 5, 2010
All or nothing?
Great letter in today's Wall Street Journal:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
How are Rice's points relevant? Recognizing or not-recognizing if certain entities have their rights in a situation is the issue. I fail to see how President Obama's understanding of how to designate foreign terrorists relates to deciding if a corporation has the same rights as the people who work in it. That is a red herring. There is no critique of President Obama's Constitutional understanding of First Amendment rights and what constitutes legal personhood in Rice's letter. It only consists of an veiled and counterfactually based accusation that President Obama embraces terrorists. Make an argument for corporate personhood, denigrate the style of President Obama's critique, discuss the concept of personhood -- but just complaining is a childish thing to do.
I am surprised that you would enjoy this letter, especially enough to put in on your blog.
While you can correctly see the letter as a critique of Obama's terrorism policy, that is not why I enjoyed it so much. Simply put, the letter demonstrates that there is no rhyme or reason in the granting of so called "constitutional rights." It's completely arbitrary.
Post a Comment