"Bruce" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 26, 1:57 am, Eustace wrote:
On 2007-08-25 12:41 help bot wrote:





On Aug 24, 7:06 pm, Eustace wrote:

IMO, the interviewer's point was not how "substantial" (!) a political
movement Fischer might lead (or even if he would find any followers),
BUT WHETHER HE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS AS A FREE
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which of course implied that he
would be able to return without being arrested and put to jail. And to
this question the answer was that he should be pardoned, be given an
apology, and hence be welcome home and, if he decided to do so, be able
to reclaim his U.S. citizenship and all the rights contained in it,
including the right to found his own party.

There appears to be a complete disconnect from
reality here. Fact: even if Bobby Fischer were to be
pardoned, he would still never come back to the
USA on account of the back taxes, plus penalties
and interest owed to the IRS. All this moaning and
groaning about "rights" makes me want to vomit; a
U.S. citizen has obligations as well as rights, and
one of the most annoying of these is our obligation
to pay taxes; in fact, it is so annoying that it is
difficult to imagine even the die-hard Fischerites
trying to stomach a "pardon" from the IRS, so the
rest of us taxpayers can bear Mr. Fischer's fair
share on his behalf. It's obvious that reality has
been thrown out the window, right along with the
bathwater and the now-busted Damiano's Defense.

-- help bot

On this issue you are clearly irrational if not prejudiced (I hope at
least not of the Zionist kind), and I generally avoid wasting my time
arguing in such cases - I have more constructive things to do - I will,
however, attempt to reason with you on a minor point: For Fischer
himself the main importance of a pardon would be that he would be free
to travel to countries other than the US. Do you disagree with this? I
suppose that you may disagree in this too, but in this case at least I
will have to admit that there is a small possibility that you are right.

Peace and Justice,

Eustace

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical
reinterpretationhttp://www.geocities.com/itaintme_babe/itaintme.html- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any constitutional test would involve a challenge to an executive
order carrying the weight of federal law since there was no act of
Congress and Congress is specifically given the powers to make laws.

Congress *has* authorized the President to issue
Executive Orders. It's a perfectly common and routine practice
in cases like this one. In this case, the Executive Order was
issued in order to put the US in compliance with UN
resolutions directed against Serbia.


It's been since 1992 so I'm having trouble remembering if Congress
ever enacted restrictions on commerce with Serbia at the time? If so
then Fischer would not have a leg to stand on, but if it was merely
the executive branch trying to enforce a law of its own he might have
a worthwhile argument.


You can always try to argue anything but it's noteworthy
that nobody of substance has tried to make this argument.
Neither the sanctions, nor the method in which
they were imposed, were the least bit controversial. This is just
a phony argument dreamt up by the Fischer apologists.