From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 05:48:27 PDT
To: blancw@microsoft.com (Blanc Weber)
Subject: Re: Constitution and Contract [Was: CIA & FBI]
In-Reply-To: <9405010825.AA17980@netmail2.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <199405011248.AA09087@access3.digex.net>
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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>