From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 11:48:41 PDT
To: blancw@pylon.com
Subject: Re: Revisionist Reinterpretation
In-Reply-To: <199409021703.KAA01444@deepthought.pylon.com>
Message-ID: <199409021848.NAA13576@zoom.bga.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> 
> I think he was talking about the Principle of the deal, Jim -  
> about what this means regarding the relationship of the 
> citizenry to the big G.
> Put all of those insurrections together and what do they spell?
> 
>                  F _  _  _       _  _  F
> 
> 
> Blanc
>
The problem I have with this interpretationis that it overlooks, to me, a 
bigger point...

Mainly that these conflicts dealt with disagreements within the 'big G' 
and were not directly about the people - big G dichotomy that you refer to.

Personaly, I still feel that the people of this country are the true government
of this nation. We have representatives who are in a position where they
approach their office as a 'job' and not a sacred duty to every individual
they meet on the street every day. They see their oath to uphold the
Constitution as a minor point and not THE point.

Section 1401 and 1402 of the Crime Bill (aptly named since it is a crime) which
regard the seizure of private property for funding during a criminal
investigation. I go the Constitution and it says that if you take private 
property for public use you have to recompense the private owner. There is
no caveat dealing with whether it is a crime or not or whether it was used
in a crime. From my point of view if a 'official' takes your property and 
does not send you a check (you agreed a priori) for it then they have 
committed a crime that is in direct and clear violation of the Constitution.
All criminal seizure programs are clearly unconstitutional.