From: hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:40:29 -0800 (PST)
To: Dale Thorn <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
In-Reply-To: <328AD670.4EDD@gte.net>
Message-ID: <9611141645.AA01354@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>"It doesn't exist".  Well!  The difference between the intent of the law
>and the "letter" of the law:  The Constitution, if it is about anything,
>it is about Balance of Power. 

Since it accepts slavery in its original form the "intent" as you put
it is probably not acceptable to you. Unless of course you spend
your weekends with a pillowcase on your head.

>An afterthought?  No.  The Constitution was a document provided at the
>behest of the States, with their approval (not dictated by the Feds), and
>those States would not ratify said document without the Enumeration of
>rights now referred to as the Bill of Rights. 

Actually there was a long and protracted debate over whether or not to
include the bill of rights in the constitution. A constitution is simply
a description of the process and organisation of government, usually in
the broadest terms. The problem with the bill of rights at the time of
the discuissions was enforcement. The role of the supreme court as
arbiter of the constitution was not originally planned. If anyone had
predicted that such a role would emerge it would have been seen as 
undesirable since it would compromise the judicial/legislative 
separation.

Incidentally one of the original gripes of the revolution was the 
type of recourse to unwritten proceedure and laws that happened
in the colonial period. That is why there was a demand for a clear
statement of the constitutional arrangements. If jefferson and so 
wanted private kangeroo courts they would have written it down.


		Phill