From: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 02:23:48 PDT
To: unicorn@access.digex.net
Subject: Re: Constitution and Contract [Was: CIA & FBI]
Message-ID: <9405010825.AA17980@netmail2.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: Black Unicorn

This seems to me like the Jeffersonian notion that the Constitution
should be amended in every generation.  Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July
12 1816, The Portable Thomas Jefferson 557-558 (M. Peterson ed. 1975).
I think this is perhaps excessive, and if you consider the effect of short
term politics, one could well find his or her own generation is the one which
does away with the 4th and 5th amendments because of a "Crime Crisis."

If your suggestion is more along the lines of a more reasoned and
enduring amendment process with some respect for the concepts of old and
more importantly an attempt to adapt the spirit of the document [the 
Constitution] to the reality of the day, I concur wholeheartedly.
...................................................

No, it has nothing to do with the amendment process; it has to do with 
original thought.

As long as the people of today or tomorrow remain attached to a 
document,  becoming dependent upon it for their thinking, then they are 
still not free, because - especially in the case of the Constitution - 
they have still not understood the message.  The principle of 
individuality and freedom from government coercion means that an 
individual can make up their own mind, can use their own judgement, and 
can decide for themselves whether or not they will become a member of 
an institution - even if that institution is already in existence 
surrounding them and it seems that it is no longer required of them to 
think about making a choice regarding their relationship to it, that 
the choice was already made for them a long time ago and the situation 
no longer requires their input  -  almost as if their opinion were 
irrelevant, almost as if that which was created in the past had nothing 
to do with them in the present.

If no one from an institution inquires whether you want to join, but 
takes it for granted that you are a member and then proceeds to treat 
you like citizen, then they have not been respectful of your 
independent ability to make up your own mind, apart from their ability 
to make that decision for you.  This is not in the spirit of the 
Constitution.

The age of the concept is not what is important; it is the principle 
elucidated.  Any document which presents important concepts is 
valuable.   It isn't requisite, however, that one remain attached to it 
in order to reap the benefit of its wisdom;  it is more important to 
recognize that to which the wisdom therein refers,  and once the ideas 
have been digested & comprehended, to advance using the perspicacity 
which you should have developed from their study.

My point in this discussion is only to say that in terms of a contract, 
no one is really provided the opportunity to "sign the deal", so to 
speak.  Too much is taken for granted, and therefore too many mistakes 
are made from the absence of a foundation based upon actual agreements 
made (rather than assumed agreement).

Blanc