From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:57:56 -0800 (PST)
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
Message-ID: <199702201657.IAA16269@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Greg Broiles wrote:
> At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
> >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times.  One of their lead editor-
> >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky,
> >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde-
> >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state
> >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97).  Either that's a load of
> >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the
> >Times, which is usually bad enough.

> Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a
> concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy
> jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual
> sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually
> used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible
> that some of the other evil conspiracies you see lurking behind every
> bush are also just reflections of your own fears and misunderstanding?

My background is not so much in conspiracy as it is in rational
problem solving.  Conspiracy is yet another model/filter with which
to evaluate events, sometimes useful unless a person automatically
rejects all of that and subscribes to the Elmer Fudd view of history.

I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying
the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting
off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the
people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using
the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and
its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked
at this.

One or more of the top feds also commented on the possibility of
retrying Simpson in another criminal case, saying it was not
possible under current law since it didn't have the same aspects
as the Rodney King cops trials. However, that doesn't take anything
away from the fact of a "democracy" run amok, in the hands of bozos
like Michael Eisner and what's-his-schmuck at the L.A. Times, who
are constantly beating the drums for revenge, so that the people
will find "some way, somehow" to lynch people like Simpson, to
"make him pay" for what he "so obviously" did to his victims.