4 ms·

The rights the author describes his exercise of can be swept away with the stroke of a pen, and once that happens, they won't be coming back.

• mrtron 16y ago
  I think we should applaud someone for having the courage to stand up for their basic rights. I don't think you should always take the path of least resistance.
• thaumaturgy 16y ago
  All the more reason to exercise them as fervently as possible.
• CGamesPlay 16y ago
  "The stroke of a pen" in the United States' case involves a majority vote in the Senate and agreement by the President (or else a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate). This is of course significantly more difficult to attain than many other pen strokes. (I suspect I agree with your sentiment, but your post is vague on your actual opinion of the matter.)
  • _delirium 16y ago
    It's not clear what you'd do with the people if you did remove an unconditional right to reentry, either. If someone has only one nationality, and that country won't allow them in, then they become effectively stateless, which is a mess, since international law generally assumes that people have nationalities. Then someone like the UN has to try to figure out where they can be sent.
    • CGamesPlay 16y ago
      I actually assumed the right we were talking about was the right to remain silent, which would require a constitutional amendment to repeal. I am not so sure about the right to reenter one's own country.
  • adammichaelc 16y ago
    This isn't quite true anymore. Over the last 2 centuries the President has little-by-little become more like a King. What I mean by that is that he has gained more powers that an absolute authority, like a King, would have. For example, the President has the power to write executive orders, which have the effect of law.  While true that these orders can be challenged by congress, they normally aren't likely due to human nature (it's easier to say no to an idea than to stop somebody who has momentum). The end result of this is that the President now has the power to basically write laws. If he is not happy with Congress's opinion, he can take matters into his own hands. On most issues he gives deference to the law-making body's authority, but the power is always in his hands to act; in other words politically and practically he is held in check on most issues by Congress and is obviously not a King (ie he can't act unilaterally), but as time passes he gets more of the power that a King would have. Edited for clarity
• tomjen3 16y ago
  No they won't, but if you actually use them, they are not going to disappear.