Originally Posted by
ryan1234
First off let's get a few things defined...
The ACLU lawyer was refering to the Fifth Amendment (due process) which does not mention the "pursuit of happiness" - to even mention this relates is not logical... I don't want to get too technical here but there are two types of due process... procedural and substansive... neither have anything to do with the "pursuit of happiness"... I could give you multiple examples in history of breaches of liberty (i.e the entire Lincoln admin.), this is not one of them. The Fifth Amendment also pertains to government bodies acting in such a manner.... there is an exemption for cases of Public Danger .
As far as the First Amendment goes
It has nothing to do with this context at all. No one is telling him he can't practice Islam with his wife.
The Government put this guy on a watch list... they didn't charge him with a crime and then not give him due process... they just put him on a watch list for whatever reason (Public Danger). His employer made the decision to deal with his employment is a particular manner.
When I was referring to limited liberty.... a better term would be "liberty with responsibility" ... we all are not free to do whatever we want. Would you use the "pursuit of happiness" term with a coke dealer... obviously not. If you read the entire context of the Declaration as well as the Constitution.. you'll see the limited liberty. Around the same time we were, the French were having a revolution... they were an example of liberty without responsibility.
Pursuit of happiness I was referring to was the ability to make a living in a trade of his choosing. Would I use pursuit of happiness for a coke dealer? No. That is breaking the law. Would I use pursuit of happiness when refering to tobacco, alcohol, or gun companies? Yes, they are legal.
Liberty with responsibility.... not sure where you are going with this. Should he have be "responsible" and not married a woman who has certain convictions? Should he have kept his religious beliefs a secret?
The federal government has put him on a list which limits his ability to do his job, yet they have not charged him. Imagine if I posted fliers in your neighborhood saying Ryan MIGHT a pedophile.
I'm not saying you are, but folks might want to keep an eye on you.
I would have made you a pariah: unwanted in your own town. Is that responsible? Is putting him on a watch list that, while not technically public, will find its way into the public forum (as this has) responsible? Perhaps they should put ME on a watch list since I enjoy alcoholic beverages (I MIGHT fly a plane drunk). Don't forget everyone who looks at porn or goes to strip bars is a potential rapist.
There have been a number of folks on the watch list who have no business being there. When they have tried to clear their names, they have met huge obstacles or failed completely.
Where do the watch lists end?
I say charge him or let him be!