North Texas Daily (Denton, Tex.), Vol. 88, No. 84, Ed. 1 Tuesday, March 2, 2004 Page: 3 of 8
eight pages : ill.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Tuesday - March 2, 2004 - Page 3
'A closer look at the issues that define who we are
and what we believe in."
James Draper
Editor in Chief
Emily H rin km ev er
Commentary Editor
Recent talk of adding a constitutional amend-
COLUMN ment defining marriage has Adam Silva con-
cerned for the civil rights of all citizens.
Amendment would affect
rights of every American
Adam Silva
Undecided Freshman
Hie Federal
Marriage Amend-
ment is a Tro-
jan Horse. Hie
amendment is a
device of the reli-
gious right to do
far more than just
deny gay couples
marriage licenses.
Indeed, it is just
the beginning of
an even bigger agenda.
Now that opponents and propo-
nents of gay marriage are all riled
up about the appending FMA, ifs
time to talk about the true impact of
including a definition of marriage
in the Constitution. The potential
impact of inclusion of the FMA
will affect eveiy American, straight
or gay, because the FMA is not just
about gay marriage, it is an attempt
to redefine the powers of the federal
government. Let me explain.
Under the Constitution of the
United States there is no explicit
"right to privacy," rather this right
to be free from excessive govern-
ment interference in our personal
Lives has arisen from Supreme Court
precedent that cites the lack of regu-
lation of intimate relationships in
the Constitution and the protections
in the Bill of Rights (especially the
Ninth Amendment, which states
just because some rights aren't ex-
plicitly written down doesn't mean
we don't have them - don't we live
in a great country?) as the basis for
the right to privacy. This right, ac-
cording the Supreme Court is found
in the penumbras and emanations
of these two factors.
But by including a provision reg-
ulating the most intimate of relation-
ships into the Constitution, the tra-
ditional analysis that
the court has used
to limit government
power will be fun-
damentally changed
and the right to pri-
vacy, if it is not de-
stroyed completely,
will be severely cur-
tailed. As a result,
decisions like Roe
v. Wade (abortion),
Griswold v. Connecticut (birth con-
trol), and Lawrence v. Texas (private
sexual acts), will all be fair game for
re-analysis under this new jurispru-
dential regime as the Constitutional
foundation for those decisions will
have been altered.
A brilliant strategy, really: with
one amendment the religious right
could wipe out access to birth con-
trol, abortion and even non-procre-
ative sex (all of which they so eagerly
want to do), along with any number
of rights we take for granted.
As this debate goes forward we
must remember it isn't only about
federalism, if s about the reversal of
200 years of liberal democracy that
respects individuals. So why isn't
anyone talking about this aspect of
it?
With luck, this agenda will be
revealed as this amendment is dis-
cussed and debated. Hie most im-
portant thing to remember is who is
behind this amendment:
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Trent
Lott, Rick Santorum, etc. For them,
homosexuals are just the beginning -
the soft targets before the real battle.
But all Americans who love lib-
erty should take note: You are next.
Adam Silva is an undecided
freshman from Denton. He can be
contacted at ars0067@tmt.edii.
Elizabeth Dixon believes that not only were
COLUMN Martha Stewart's actions acceptable, but
admirable for a woman in our society.
Stewart triumphs over law
Elizabeth Dixon
Journalism Junior
Martha Stew-
art has not only
managed to
become one of
America's great-
est female icons,
she has also sur-
vived half of her
legal battle.
Her security
fraud charges
were dropped
last Friday. This shows not only
how powerful a woman can be
but how a woman can prevail in
the eyes of justice.
Anyone in her position would
have pulled out of the ImClone
stock. She put tons of money into
ImClone, and she had insider con-
nections along the way. She wasn't
try ing to manipulate the system. If
she was, don't you think the fed-
eral law would have seen through
that? District Judge Miriam Gold-
man dismissed the charges be-
cause they couldn't find enough
evidence.
If the legal system can't find sig-
nificant information, then Martha
Stew7art is not only wrongfully ac-
cused but she has just single-hand-
edly controlled the stock market.
Ei ther way, this dismissal is in
her favor. The stock market is a
cut-throat business. You have to
know what you're getting into.
If you don't have connections on
the inside, then why bother trad-
ing7
If in fact Martha pulled out of
ImClone, she was just working
in her interest. If someone w7ere to
tell you that all your
savings were about
to dissipate within
24 hours, you would
pull out, too. Of
course she had con-
nections - any smart
person within the
stock market should
have some kind of
safety net.
What makes the
situation even better is that she is
a woman who defied the stereo-
type that a woman can't make it
in the business wTorld. The glass
ceiling was not only broken in
her case, but she has paved the
wTay for many other females in
pursuit of money and power.
For a woman to have so much
knowledge and supremacy as
Martha is looked at as impos-
sible in our society. Martha has tri-
umphed over the clichéd woman.
She gives all women hope that
you can be aggressive and inde-
pendent. Women can look at Mar-
tha and know7 that anything, even
controlling the law in your advan-
tage, is possible.
Martha Stewart gives all fe-
males inspiration to reach out
and make something of them-
selves. She has set up the crite-
rion for powerful women who
want to endure in society's
challenging w7orld of business.
Elizabeth Dixon is a jour-
nalism junior from Fort
Worth. She can be contacted at
ed0024@unt.edu.
DANA DUFNETZ/NT DAILY
If you qualify, apply
Last Thursday, Fort
Worth sophomore Justin
Couchman dropped out of
the Student Government
Association's presiden-
tial race. This left Denton
junior Jesse Davis uncon-
tested in the 2004 election.
On Monday night, the
SGA election board chose
to re-open the candidacy
filing for Wednesday and
Thursday. Under the cur-
rent plan of action, if no
suitable candidate files,
Davis automatically be-
comes president with no
student vote.
If the SGA proceeds with
this decision, it risks deny-
ing students their right
to choose who represents
their interests on campus.
In Friday's issue of the
Daily, current SGA presi-
dent Troy Griffis said the
organization had three
choices: (1) It could re-
open the candidate filings
to allow others to apply.
(2) It could let Davis
run unopposed with
only a "Yes" box on
the ballot, a shoo-in
technique - if just one
student votes "Yes,"
Davis and running
mate Brooke Wilson,
North Richland Hills
junior, would win
automatically. (3) The
SGA could have let
Davis run unopposed
with both "Yes" and
"No" boxes on the
ballot. The risk with
this option is, if the
majority of students
vote "no" the organi-
zation would be left
with no president
until a new plan of
action is chosen.
Though the SGA
election board had
three proposed options, there
is only one correct choice.
It chose the wrong one.
If no suitable candi-
dates come forward, the
next course of action
is to put the yes/no
option on the ballot.
This plan may involve
some risk, but it al-
lows students to exer-
cise their democratic
power. The SGA's cur-
rent proposal does not
allow us this right.
If Davis wins the
presidency automati-
cally with no student
majority vote, the
SGA runs the risk of
losing its legitimacy
for governing the stu-
dent body. In addi-
tion, since it skipped
the election process, it
could cause problems
with constituents'
trust later on. Presi-
dent Bush still gets
flak for not receiving
the popular vote in 2000,
and there is nothing stop-
ping the same thing from
happening to Davis.
Griffis said Monday that
Davis is a very qualified
candidate. He meets the
requirements and has a
great deal of experience
with the SGA.
However, regardless of Da-
vis's qualifications, if he wins
the presidency7 this way, he
could face a loss of credibility
because he wasn't chosen by
the majority.
Unopposed elections
and automatic presiden-
cies are unfair to voters.
It is essential that another
candidate step forward to
balance the race. Quali-
fied candidates include
students who have at least
one semester of experience
in the SGA, have a cumu-
lative grade-point average
of 2.75 or higher and will
be a junior on the day they
would take office.
If you are a qualified can-
didate, run for this posi-
tion to protect the freedom
of choice and the value of
democracy.
POI 11 M l Are certain basic human rights universal, or are they relative? Should they be based in law
vULUIVMl or ¡n religion? Adam Jensen examines what reasons are used to justify the claim of rights.
No clear winner in struggle for rights
Right about now, a lot of
talk is going on about people's
rights. In fact, most moral
debates nowadays focus on
what rights people have and
how those rights ought to be
respected. Right or wrong, it's
hard to avoid this rights-based
frenzy in today's moral mar-
ketplace.
Now take note of some-
thing here: when people claim
rights, they always say these
rights apply universally. I11
other words, basic human
rights aren't supposed to be
relative; if they exist, they
must be constant, granted to
everyone, everywhere, at all
times. If this concept is incor-
rect, the idea of rights becomes
useless.
Useless? But w7hy? Well, to
claim a right is to say that you
deserve something or some
treatment from others; that is,
people have a duty or obliga-
tion toward you that must be
respected. If someone ignores
that obligation, you would
say that a serious moral error
has been committed. But if
rights are relative, then there
is no reason why your opin-
ion should be believed above
someone else's; the offender
would be completely justified
in ignoring you. It's his or her
right.
To sum it up ... once this
offender has disagreed with
Adam Jensen
Philosophy Senior
you, you ve
lost both the
argument
and your
perceived
right.
If, howev-
er, people are
right to say
that rights
must be uni-
versal rather
than relative, another problem
arises. Suppose someone's
wallet has been stolen. His or
her perceived property right
has been infringed upon - but
until we've agreed upon a basis
for determining which rights
are truly universal, if s not rea-
sonable to say that any such
property right actually exists.
So wThat is the source of rights?
Lef s look at the options.
One possibility is the legal
system: people establish lawTs
and constitutions to protect
certain perceived rights, in-
cluding the right to own such
things as wrallets. But does this
really answer the question?
After all, there's still no proof
that these perceived rights
have any real basis beyond
that people perceive them.
Whaf s to stop someone from
just pulling new rights out of
thin air? If people's rights are
based on people's ideas, then
there's nothing to keep some
unscrupulous interest group
from demanding
the right to steal
your wallet, sleep
in your house
or even eat your
dog.
Beyond that,
legal rights aren't
even what we're
looking for. A
wallet thief can
be punished ac-
cording to the laws of his or
her nation, but can't be said
to have violated a universal
human right. This is because
rights within a legal system are
only valid within that system,
rather than being applicable
across national and historical
boundaries. In other words,
the law can protect rights once
they are established, but it can-
not establish them universally
or permanently. To do that, w?e
will need to dig deeper.
OK then... maybe they come
from social agreement. People
in a given society tend to agree
on rules of fair conduct, im-
plying certain basic rights. For
instance, our wronged friend's
wallet ought not to have been
stolen because people agreed
upon that standard. This,
however, is just a not-so-
clever restatement of the legal
system solution; rights based
on social agreement are still
not universal enough. No so-
ciety universally agrees on
wTiich rights are basic to all
human beings. Even if they
did, there's no wTay to decide
which society is right, and at
what time in history. People
are too fickle to be a viable
source of universal rights, no
matter how you phrase it.
I could go on, but none of
the other options fare any bet-
ter. We might try religion - but
which one? Simple necessity
might be an option - but who
gets to decide whafs really
necessary? Lef s face it: human
ideas can never serve success-
fully as a basis for the univer-
sal rights wiiich are suppos-
edly granted to all humans.
Simply put, there is no
agreed-upon basis for deter-
mining the basic human rights
we hold so dear. If they're just
cultural and individual biases,
they can't be used in absolute
moral arguments. No room
for agreeing to disagree here:
there has to be some sort of
basis for your rights if other
people must respect them.
Yet we can't seem to agree on
where rights come from, so at
this point they might as well
not exist. Sound problematic?
I think so.
Adam Jensen is a philoso-
phy senior from Bismarck,
N.D. He can be contacted at
acj 0012@unt.edu.
To our readers:
The Aforth Texas Daily does not neces-
sarily endorse, back or believe the philoso-
phy of the writers on this page. The content
of the editorial is decided by the Editorial
Board and written by the Commentary
Editor. The content of the columns is
strictly the opinion of the writers and in no
way reflects the beliefs of the newspaper.
Letters & Columns Policy:
The Daily welcomes guest columns
and letters to the editor. They should be
between 600 and 800 words, typed with
the author's name and classification and
should include a daytime phone number.
The Daily will not consider anony-
mous submissions and doesn't guarantee
publication of all submissions. Letters
and columns will be edited for gram-
mar, style, space and libel, but a writer's
meaning will not be changed. Letters
may be mailed, e-mailed, faxed or hand-
delivered.
Deliver submissions to GAB 117,
fax to (940) 565-3573, or e-mail to the
Commentary edi tor at brintuzek @ ho tmai 1.
com or mail to P.O. Box 311460, Denton,
TX 76203.
Editorial Board:
James Draper, Cindy Brown, Rachel
Hamm, Emily Brinkmeyer, Jeff Andrews,
Jaclyn Barrientes, Brian Stimson, Tyler Utt,
J.D. Vega, Michael Walter
Daily Quote
"The idea of an election is much more
interesting to me than the election itself
... The act of voting is in itself the defin-
ing moment."
- Jeff Malvoin
("Northern Exposure,
Democracy in America," 1992)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
North Texas Daily (Denton, Tex.), Vol. 88, No. 84, Ed. 1 Tuesday, March 2, 2004, newspaper, March 2, 2004; Denton, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth145112/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.