From http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Heroes/BetsySpeicher.asp

Betsy Speicher is a long-time activist in the Objectivist movement who
communicates the Good News of Objectivism's growing influence through a
regular electronic newsletter.

Toward the end of 1999, Speicher helped alert Objectivists to a story about
Emmanuel Foroglou, a Greek immigrant at risk of being deported from the
country. (Although he has been in the country since the early 1980s, he has
never acquired a green card.)

Until recently, Foroglou was moldering in a Maine county jail for the crime
of wanting to live in the United States as the Immigration and
Naturalization Service continued its efforts to boot him out. On December
30, 1999, however, he was released into the custody of INS, an event
reported in a recent issue of Speicher's Cybernet.

"I was not deported," Foroglou told Cybernet. "I was released on bond and I
returned home just a few hours ago. Now my case will be considered by the
First Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals and the Board of Immigration
Appeals in the months to come." Foroglou expresses appreciation for "the
support of fellow Objectivists that I greatly admire and revere. It is
thanks to your efforts that I regained my freedom and I therefore owe you a
tremendous debt of gratitude."

"I have a personal reason for getting involved with Emmanuel Foroglou's
immigration case," says Speicher. "My own father was a Russian refugee who
loved this country and never let me forget what a blessing it is to be an
American. Over the years I have watched the struggles of friends who would
make wonderful Americans as they contend with the frustration of our
irrational immigration laws. I have seen some of them deported. I think this
is a tragedy.

"That's why I have vowed to do everything I can to help good people from all
over the world become Americans. I keep a list of those who want to come
here and I try to get them good legal advice, visas, green cards, and
qualifying jobs. If you would like to be added to my list or you are able to
offer employment and other help to future Americans, please write to me."

A computer programmer by day, Speicher has published her newsletter since
1995 and counts several hundred paying subscribers. Among many other
Internet and software-related projects, she designed and programmed
WRITE-ON!, a word-processing software marketed by Datamost, Inc.

Speicher's web site reports that "my family and I recently realized a
long-standing dream—to own a home that embodies good functional modern
architecture, has a wide-open California feel to it, and is a joy to live
in. Our home is an 'Eichler' built by iconoclastic real estate developer
Joseph Eichler, who believed that uncompromisingly fine design could be made
affordable and should be made available to those capable of appreciating
it."





"dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote in message
news:vnn99unkvdbg64@corp.supernews.com...

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=160
The Supreme Court's Violations of Individual Rights (The Checks Don't
Balance Anymore!)
by Emmanuel Forgolou (January 21, 2001)

Summary: Far from protecting man's rights, the nation's highest Court has
been instrumental in multiple violations of rights over the last two
centuries. As long as the Supreme Court persists in practicing the
contradiction between inalienable rights and the altruist-collectivist
ethics, it is man's rights that will lose out.
The Founding Fathers entrusted the Supreme Court with the protection of

the

rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the
Constitution. By this standard, the proper yardstick for evaluating

Supreme

Court rulings is their impact on individual rights. Regrettably, the Court
has abysmally failed to measure up to its responsibility. Far from
protecting man's rights, the nation's highest Court has been instrumental

in

multiple violations of rights over the last two centuries.
The principle of rights defines and sanctions man's freedom of action in a
social context, thus identifying the actions a man may properly undertake.
The Declaration of Independence states that rights are inalienable, which
means they are an inseparable aspect of human nature. The rights an
individual possesses are not a privilege granted by society, but an
acknowledgment and recognition of the most essential requirement of his
existence qua man.
Unfortunately, even though man's inalienable rights found recognition in

the

Declaration of Independence and were incorporated in the Constitution,

they

were negated by the prevailing morality. As a result, America's commitment
to its founding principle was tragically compromised. This has been
manifested in the conduct of the Supreme Court throughout its history.
The Supreme Court's violation of rights can be traced all the way back to
the eighteenth century. In one of its very first decisions, Calder v. Bull
(1798), the court ruled that "the right of property is conferred by
society," "private rights must yield to public exigencies," and "if the
owners should refuse voluntarily to accommodate the public, they must be
constrained, as far as the public necessities require." The
altruist-collectivist ethics is clearly manifested in Calder v. Bull,

which

does not view property rights as inalienable, but as concessions from
society, a profoundly collectivist notion.
The language of this ruling identifies the root cause of the all the
violations of rights that have been perpetrated by the Supreme Court. The
culprit here is the altruist-collectivist ethics, which remained
unchallenged till the middle of the twentieth century.
From the outset America was plagued by the clash between a political

system

committed to the protection of man's rights and a morality negating the
value of man. Ayn Rand, an American novelist and philosopher, first
identified the nature of this contradiction when she wrote that the right

to

the pursuit of happiness proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is
incompatible with the status of a sacrificial animal ascribed to man by
altruism. This conflict explains how the Supreme Court could openly
contradict the nation's founding document.
Calder v. Bull reveals the foremost legal implication of the
altruist-collectivist ethics, which consists of giving precedence to the
needs of some people over the rights of others. In direct contrast to the
Declaration of Independence, the nation's highest court decided that

rights

can be alienated if so doing serves the needs of others. Since ethical
premises govern political decisions, the morality of altruism-collectivism
had to prevail over the political principles devised by the Founding
Fathers.
In all the above respects Calder v. Bull turned out to be prophetic.
Throughout US history the Supreme Court has held that rights are granted

by

society and can therefore be revoked whenever this would serve some social
purpose. Pursuant to this line of reasoning, the Court has sanctioned the
government's power to violate individual rights and has consistently ruled
that it is legitimate to sacrifice the rights of some people for the sake

of

satisfying the needs of others. These elements have been present in all

the

instances where the Supreme Court has run roughshod over individual rights
over the last two centuries.
The influence of the altruist-collectivist ethics has been so dominant

that

all Justices have held the view that rights are dispensable and can be
rightfully violated in order to achieve social goals. They have differed
only with respect to concrete issues such as when, how, and to what extent
it is proper to infringe on man's rights.
As America started moving full-speed towards statism in the twentieth
century, the Supreme Court acquired a more prominent role in the expansion
of government power at the expense of individual liberties in all areas of
life, including property, business, speech, religion, and sex. The Court's
crusade against rights became obvious at the time of World War I, when the
Constitution was crumbling under the all-out assault of the Progressive

Era.

Two chilling rulings during that period demonstrated that even the most
explicit constitutional guarantees had become dead letters in the eyes of
the Court. The first one upheld the military draft in the Selective Draft
Law Cases of 1918. In response to the claim that such power violated the
Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, the Supreme
Court ruled that the exaction by the government from the citizen of the
performance of his "supreme and noble duty" of defending the country in a
war declared by "the great representative body of the people" did not
constitute servitude. This language clearly reflects the Court's sentiment
that altruist-collectivist ethics override individual rights, which makes

it

proper for the government to compel individuals to sacrifice their liberty
and their life if this is required to fulfill their duty to the

collective.

Not only did the Supreme Court uphold the military draft, but at the same
time it suppressed the free speech of those who condemned the draft as
despotism and called on people to assert their rights. An anti-draft
activist named Schenk and others were convicted of "espionage" because

they

allegedly caused "insubordination in the military and naval forces." These
individuals were not spies nor did they engage in any activities

subversive

of America's war effort. Their "crime" consisted solely of distributing
handbills denouncing the draft and urging Americans to resist it.
When the case reached the Supreme Court (1919), its unanimous ruling was
that in time of war "many things that might be said in time of peace are
such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so
long as men fight." Thus the protection of free speech fell victim to the
altruist-collectivist ethics, with the alleged guardians of the

Constitution

ruling that the freedom of speech ought to be brushed aside in the

presence

on an overriding social goal.
The Schenk ruling was an omen of several violations of the right to free
speech in subsequent Supreme Court decisions. In direct contradiction to

the

First Amendment, the Court made a distinction between ideological and
commercial speech, claiming that only the former is protected by the
Constitution, while the latter may be properly infringed upon by the
government. This spurious differentiation was made most explicit in

Virginia

State Board of Pharmacy (1976), where the Court ruled that its standard as
to whether speech deserves constitutional protection is whether it merely
"propose[s] a commercial transaction" or promotes "truth, science,

morality,

and arts in general," claiming that only the latter category of speech is
protected by the First Amendment. Again, the Court revealed its
altruist-collectivist premises by establishing social utility as the
criterion for determining whether speech ought to be protected or can be
safely restricted by the government.
The suppression of commercial speech is but one instance of the abuse
business has suffered in the hands of the Supreme Court. Over the years

the

Court has upheld antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, price controls,
standards of "quality" and "safety," affirmative action quotas, and other
laws that trample on a businessman's right to manage his property as he

sees

fit. The Supreme Court clearly holds the view that a man becomes public
property by going into business, with the implication that businessmen do
not enjoy inalienable rights, but can function only by permission of the
collective.
No aspect of human activity has been left immune from the Supreme Court's
altruist-collectivist assault on man's rights. Despite the constitutional
prohibition of the enactment of laws "impairing the obligations of
contracts," the Supreme Court upheld legal tender laws (in the Gold Clause
Cases, 1935), mortgage default (in Home Building & Loan Association v.
Blaisdell, 1934), and bans of racially restrictive covenants (in Shelly v.
Craemer, 1948).
The First Amendment protection of religious freedom and free speech did

not

prevent the Supreme Court from banning polygamy among Mormons (in Reynolds
v. United States, 1878) and imposing censorship (in Miller v. California,
1973, and Paris Adult Theater I v. Slayton, 1973). Contrary to the Fifth
Amendment, the Court sanctioned the taking of private property without

just

compensation (in Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 1962). Even private

sexual

practices fell victim to the altruist-collectivist Armageddon, as the

Court

upheld the anti-sodomy statutes of states like Arizona, Virginia, and
Washington, which criminalize sexual practices occurring in an "unnatural
manner" (in the language of the Arizona law).
It is clear that, as long as the Supreme Court persists in practicing the
contradiction between inalienable rights and the altruist-collectivist
ethics, it is man's rights that will lose out. It is also clear that,
without a fundamental change in philosophy, Supreme Court decisions will
never recognize the inalienable status of individual rights. Just as the
pernicious morality of altruism has led the Supreme Court to violate its
constitutional role and suppress the rights it was founded to protect, a
morality of rational self-interest is the necessary prerequisite for a
fundamental change in the Supreme Court's direction.
The task before us is obvious. It is essential to challenge the
altruist-collectivist orthodoxy of our time and firmly defend the ethics

of

rational self-interest, which is the only antidote to the contradiction
between man's rights and the altruist-collectivist morality. This is the
only way of restoring the inalienable rights of man as the foundation of

the

American system of government

--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the

state

at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.