From: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:11:17 +0800
To: Duncan Frissell <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Markoff on Clipper III
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960715184219.00827588@panix.com>
Message-ID: <v03007603ae104e6ebc38@[192.187.162.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:42 AM -0700 7/15/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>At 10:20 AM 7/15/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
>>At 3:50 AM -0700 7/15/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>>>At 09:35 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
>>>
>>>>Did you miss the part in the Constitution about "provide for the common
>>>>defence"
>>>
>>>That's a meaningless part of the Preamble.
>>
>>Anyone who thinks substantive parts of the Preamble are "meaningless" is
>>deserving only of contumely. Perhaps you should review your high school
>>civics course--you did have one of those, yes?
>>
>>David
>>
>
>Welcome to the list.
>
>Yes my high school Civics class was good.  So were my law school Con Law
>courses.
>
>Yes, David I would say you practice "contumely" -- Rudeness or contempt
>arising from arrogance; insolence.  But then so do I.
>
>I'll say again, the Preamble speaks of the reasons the drafters of the
>Constitution had for writing the thing, it does not set forth any powers of
>the federal government.  Goals not means.  GAK is a means not a goal.

Now that is a more useful and accurate statement than that substantive
parts of the Preamble are "meaningless". As you must know from your Con Law
classes, legislative intent is an important element of many Supreme Court
decisions, and the Preamble is certainly as crisp and classical a statement
of legislative intent as one can find.

The specific point, of course, wasn't GAK but the silly dispute by one of
our beloved nit-pickers of the assertion that the President took an oath to
protect national security. By inclusion in his oath to defend the
Constitution, given the bits I cited, he effectively did.

Best;
David