From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: be307884c07bc63f3e0f0133b42ca9d9ac14111bca86ba31cfa7fcb24e20f335
Message ID: <199507140224.WAA05123@bb.hks.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-07-14 02:27:17 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 19:27:17 PDT
From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 95 19:27:17 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Root Causes
Message-ID: <199507140224.WAA05123@bb.hks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <199507140151.UAA01504@arnet.arn.net>, merriman@arn.net (David
K. Merriman) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>While I respect the ideas and opinions submitted by the majority of the
>members of this list, I wonder if perhaps we're failing to deal with the
>_root_ problem of such things as the CDA, Clipper, DTA, etc.
>
>Specifically, I wonder if it wouldn't be a better approach to *prevent* such
>measures from ever being proposed in the first place.
Short of a 50 kilo ton bomb on Washington, I don't see any way that could
be accomplished.
<No, I don't advocate nuking DC.>
>Is there any precedence or possibility of either filing civil or criminal
>charges against a Government official for their _official_ actions?
>Something that will not only make for some Serious Press, but hit them from
>an unexpected angle?
You can't sue the government without its prior consent. Government
officials are also usually immune from being sued over their official
actions.
>It would seem that things such as the CDA, etc, are patent violations of the
>Bill of Rights. As such, wouldn't the Congressrodent(s) proposing such
>measures be violating our civil rights, and thus be criminally liable?
>Aren't Congressrodents supposed to take an Oath of Office that involves
>upholding the Constitution?
The oath is not ment to be kept. It's sole purpose is to provide a photo
op for the incomming congresscritters.
- --
- -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
PGP encrypted mail preferred.
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service
iQBFAwUBMAXVPioZzwIn1bdtAQFp5gF/WnEoNO15G11gXi9G/BmtFzu/toHZPBmj
ldONnU+mbB5c9LIGeJH3usQZLdT/D4Sw
=NpN9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to July 1995
Return to “shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)”
1995-07-14 (Thu, 13 Jul 95 19:27:17 PDT) - Re: Root Causes - shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)