For many years now, the USA has had a list of what it calls "state sponsors of terrorism", those countries that support the use of terrorism as a political tactic. The countries on the list include Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. So what is it that these nations do? They support those who would destroy lives and property in order to gain a political triumph.
It may be time to add the city of Chicago to the list. That city has not yet endorsed murder as a political tool, but it certainly has moved forward to support the destruction of property. Just today, mayor Emmanuel called for large banks to stop doing business with companies that manufacture firearms. He made clear that absent such cooperation from the banks, there would be dire consequences inflicted upon them by the city.
If Chicago's government wants to weigh in on the gun debate, that is fine. If Chicago wants to boycott gun manufacturers and have its police use water pistols instead, that too is fine. What is not fine, however, is for the city to threaten to damage banks unless they join in the fight on the side the city wants. We all know that the government cannot act to penalize a company or an individual for its political positions. That is the substance of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is called freedom of speech. It is reprehensible (and unconstitutional to boot) for the government to force banks to penalize those same companies and individuals so as to do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
The next time someone tells you that "it's a free country", remember Chicago. Hopefully, we will not get to the point where the appropriate response is "it used to be."
It may be time to add the city of Chicago to the list. That city has not yet endorsed murder as a political tool, but it certainly has moved forward to support the destruction of property. Just today, mayor Emmanuel called for large banks to stop doing business with companies that manufacture firearms. He made clear that absent such cooperation from the banks, there would be dire consequences inflicted upon them by the city.
If Chicago's government wants to weigh in on the gun debate, that is fine. If Chicago wants to boycott gun manufacturers and have its police use water pistols instead, that too is fine. What is not fine, however, is for the city to threaten to damage banks unless they join in the fight on the side the city wants. We all know that the government cannot act to penalize a company or an individual for its political positions. That is the substance of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is called freedom of speech. It is reprehensible (and unconstitutional to boot) for the government to force banks to penalize those same companies and individuals so as to do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
The next time someone tells you that "it's a free country", remember Chicago. Hopefully, we will not get to the point where the appropriate response is "it used to be."
No comments:
Post a Comment