Johnny L.A.: Suffice it to say I think my reading is simpler, makes sense and requires less contortion than yours, and is therefore the correct one. It is also consonant with provisions found within the text of the constitution, as noted above – a point you conspicuously avoided.
That’s not necessarily true.
These days most libraries have a computerized checkout/records system. My local library does. My dad is dating one of the librarians and I asked her about the system in regards to what records it keeps of what patrons check out.
She said that it only has a record of what a patron currently has checked out.
However, the hard drive does keep a record of
everything a patron has ever checked out.
Which raises the frightening possibility of someone being arrested for a book they may have checked out 15 years ago.
It is plain that Franklin was using a well-know rhetorical device. I’ve pointed out the difference between “liberty” and “liberties”. My explanation requires no contortion at all and is consistant with the rules of speechmaking, and is therefor the correct one.
Tell me: When Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death,” was he saying, “Give me those liberties that King George has decided are essential”; or was he saying “Give me that thing known as liberty, which is an essential component of a free society.”?
I’m sorry I have so little time in the mornings to address every issue! Sheesh!
Here is the Clause you cite:
The United States is not in a state of rebellion, nor are we being invaded. Furthermore, it does not address violations of the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act does seem to allow “fishing expiditions”.
From this site: “The writ is “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969).”
I agree with Johnny L.A. that the word “essential” is there as an emphasis. Actually that is pretty obvious, I don’t know why people even feel there is a need to debate this (in order to read some bogus non-meaning into Franklin’s words).
Agreed. I see this behaviour everywhere in the world and gives me the creeps, because there are so many wrong things you can justify with the line “If you have nothing to hide, then this little inconvenience doesn’t matter.”.
Dewey, I have to agree with the others regarding the exegesis of Franklin’s quote. Franklin’s comments are rhetoric, not legal drafting. Applying rules of statutory construction to rhetorical oration is simply absurd, but that’s exactly what you’re doing. “Consonance with the Constitution” is a ludicrous reason for favoring a construction of a statement uttered years before (1759, in fact) the Constitution was even contemplated, let alone drafted.
Stop thinking like a lawyer for ten seconds and it’ll be obvious to you too.
Who said anything about the Patriot Act? I think you could reasonably argue that the Patriot Act does interfere with essential liberty. That isn’t my point.
I just hate the abuse this Franklin quote is subjected to, especially when it is misquoted as it was earlier. I’ve heard it tossed around in opposition to the slightest impositions made in the name of security, from increased airport checks to driver’s license thumbprints. I think it safe to say that isn’t want Franklin had in mind.
The constitution, which Franklin presumably approved of, bears this out. It allows the restriction of a liberty interest (the right to habeas corpus) in the name of security (namely, during times of rebellion or invasion).
The US properly places an important premium on individual liberty. In most cases, when balanced against the need for security, individual liberty wins out. But not always. There are instances where either the security threat is so large or the imposition on liberty is so small that security wins out. All I’m saying is that Franklin wasn’t an absolutist, and his quotation shouldn’t be read as though he was.
If all liberty interests are equally “essential” and cannot be infringed in the name of security, do you think Franklin would have objected to the security checkpoints at major airports?
You clearly have no idea what the “rules of statutory construction” are, because if you did you’d see that I haven’t applied them in any way, shape or form. I have applied some basic English grammar, which I would hope we could agree applies to rhetoric. Franklin wasn’t speaking Portugese, you know.
Just an update on Patriot Act II: according to the NYTimes, Senate Republicans today backed down from an effort to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers in a 2001 act, clearing the way for passage of a less divisive measure that would still expand the governments ability to spy on foreign terror suspects in the United States.
Senator Orrin Hatch ® Utah, dropped his effort to extend provisions of the 2001 legislation, the Patriot Act, whose broad powers to investigate and track terrorist suspects are scheduled to expire in 2005.
No, Dewey, you have not. Seeking consonance with the Constitution is not basic English grammar. Seeking to find denotative meaning in every word of every sentence is not basic English grammar. Both of these, however, are rules of statutory construction.
Sometimes lawyers forget that the rest of the world has a different view of language than they do.
The point of bringing up the constitution was to illustrate my point that Franklin wasn’t an absolutist on the liberty/security issue. I mean, really: if any ceding of liberty interests in favor of security interests means we deserve neither, then the founding fathers must not have deserved liberty or security – after all, they made just such a compromise in Article I, s. 9.**
The whole point of English grammar is to understand what a series of words and punctuation mean. I’m flabbergasted that you would suggest otherwise. **
Good God, woman, stop talking nonsense – you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
“An ambiguous statute is to be interpreted in accord with the intent of Congress” is a rule of statutory construction. “Statutes in derogation of the common law shall be construed narrowly” is a rule of statutory construction. “A statute shall be construed so as be constitutional if at all possible” is a rule of statutory construction.
Basic, everyday, elementary-school English grammar is not a “rule of statutory construction” (though it is useful in reading statutes – and any other text written in the English language).
Dewey, one of the rules of statutory construction I was taught is “an interpretation which fails to give meaning to every part of the text to be interpreted should be dispreferred to one that does”. This is the rule that you are applying when you misinterpret Franklin. The rule makes sense when interpreting a statute, but not when interpreting rhetorical orations, or in fact many other forms of writing, where words may be included to amplify connotative or emotive intents rather than to specify denotative meaning.
That is your error. That you refuse to admit even the possibility of error is sign of your overwhelming hubris.
Dewey, I also do not read Franklin’s words the way you insist they ought to be read, nor do I find much justification for your strong insistence in your subsequent arguments on the matter (ex-Constitution).
Other than that, I am following this debate with interest – but I doubt I am the only one growing weary of your tone, so please, in the interest of discussion, consider blunting your comments a little bit. No one in this thread thus far deserves the comments you have made regarding the English language, its grammar, punctuation, etc., and their ignorance thereof.
Perhaps you are simply wrong. Or perhaps English is ambiguous enough not to support directly your (IMO unlikely) view of what precisely Franklin meant.
Utter nonsense. No one is suggesting that the word “essential” be ignored. I say that term describes a particular subset of liberty, while you say it applies to liberty itself – that all liberty interests are equally “essential.”
Abe: the only person I’ve taken a harsh tone with is KellyM, whose own tone has rested on the nasty side. Compare my replies to KellyM with my replies to Johnny L.A. and Optihut.
Again, my point is a narrow one: that Franklin was not an absolutist on the liberty/security issue, and that this quotation of his is abused, particularly in its commonly-misquoted incarnation.
Answer me just this one question: does the Constitution’s habeas corpus clause make the founding fathers unworthy “of liberty or security”?
Well, Dewey, you have on multiple occasions resorted to hand-waving references to superior (or inferior) English skills on a matter where others disagreed with you, a matter that is by no means as clear as you suggest throughout this thread. In response to an objection by Johnny L.A. regarding Franklin’s words, you wrote that Johnny’s objection would apply
The Franklin readings that you repeatedly reject, those different from your one interpretation, are not necessarily as bizarre as you claim, and do not have to rely on ignorance of English grammar for acceptance. Rather, as was suggested, it is possible you are thinking on terms slightly different from other posters.
Then, in response to an objection by Johhny L.A. that I don’t think you explained away sufficiently well, you say:
It seems to me that posters already submitted that it is your interpretation that is less simple. And no one submitted anything whatsoever about your language skills, in spite of the fact that we may disagree with you.
In response to kellyM:
The above was in response to someone whose point was that “Franklin’s comments are rhetoric, not legal drafting” and therefore your excessively analytical and “legalese” interpretation was potentially misleading. As I said, I think I agree with the objection.
In response to KellyM:
I have a hard time considering the above last comment as anything more than a dumb-down of the argument, a misinterpretation of what the poster said.
I also don’t see what was "nasty’ about kellyM’s tone. She did say you ought to stop thinking like a lawyer, which maybe you considered nasty, but under the circumstances it was an appropriate comment repeated by others without any intended offence.
Your pet peeve may be seeing Franklin’s words misquoted, and that is fair enough; mine is seeing people resort to claiming that different, seemingly valid interpretations of ambiguous English must originate from an ignorance of the language rather than valid interpretation of records.
Well, the segment may be abused, no argument there. But would Franklin necessarily be an absolutist on the liberty/security issue if the use of “essential liberty” in his quote was a rhetorical device rather than, as you suggest, a reference to a particular subset of liberty? Is this really a dichotomy?
Why does this matter when interpreting the fragment?
Snooping through library records or listening in on telephone conversations without people’s knowledge or consent is - to me personally at least - different than having my luggage checked in my presence and with my consent at a clearly identified security checkpoint.
Having to take off my shoes would be bordering on harrassment in my opinion, but so far that request wasn’t made. It’s been a while since I boarded a plane though.
Security checkpoints aren’t really infringing on my personal rights, because a) I am not forced to board a plane and b) it’s not really a private act.
What I do in my free time however is none of the government’s business and any supervision there does interfere with my personal rights. Hence it is an infringement on my liberties.
However what Franklin would say, is everyone’s guess, I can’t really answer that one 
Do I really need to step you through this? I guess so. Here goes:
-
The right to habeas corpus is a liberty interest.
-
The constitution, as written by the founding fathers, allows suspension of that liberty interest in favor of security in certain specified instances (i.e., rebellion, invasion).
-
Franklin, by your interpretation, was saying any ceding of any liberty interest in the name of security makes a person or persons unworthy of either liberty or security.
-
Therefore, by your reading, Franklin would have considered the founding fathers unworthy of liberty or security.
If that quotation means all liberty interests are essential and that they must never, ever, under any circumstances be sacrificed in the interest of public safety (which is usually how this quote is typically used in debate), then that is the conclusion that must be drawn. Obviously, I think that’s ridiculous.
As for the rest of your post – the remaining 3/4 of it was spent discussing my tone. Good Lord, man, get a life.
And that is why you ought to stop thinking like a lawyer.
I don’t see the whole matter as you insist on it as an either or choice (that Franklin “was saying any ceding of any liberty” etc.). In fact I suspect you’re presenting a false dichotomy.
As for your tone, well one does get tired of it. You contested my earlier (quick) assertion about it, and I defended it.
Speaking as a library clerk I can tell you that the library system I work for does not keep records of anything you check out after you return it. There just isn’t enough computing power for that kind of system and with budget cuts hitting libraries all across the country I doubt many other libraries keep this information as well.