From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 06:22:16 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: New Laws in Oregon - "Land of the Legal betatest"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970620105013.1120B-100000@linda.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <v03102803afd0aafa668d@[10.0.2.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>An interesting set of issues about "states rights" and "local control." I
>used to think--indeed, this is what I was taught--that certain things
>stated in the U.S. Constitution, such as the various items in the Bill of
>Rights we mention so often, would block many local or state laws.
>
>Thus, if Nebraska passed a law restricting religious freedoms, making Islam
>a crime, for example, then this would be "struck down" by the Supremes.
>
>I no longer feel very secure in this belief. For example, many states,
>counties, and cities have laws which abridge the Second Amendment. Why are
>these local laws not unconstitutional? When I have raised these points I
>have been told by law professors (for example, on the Cyberia list) that
>surely I support "states rights," don't I?
>
>I now think it is likely that the 50 state legislatures, the thousands of
>county and city governments, will accelerate their lawmaking machinery.
>They have learned that the way to steady employment is to proliferate
>bureacracies, that despite various scattered attempts to limit such
>bureacratic growth, the expansion basically continues and even acclerates.
>This ensures a huge job pool for politicians and bureaucrats. (Even
>politicians who "retire" or are "voted out" find continued employment in
>regional and local bureaucracies....
>

One reason this is occuring is that there is no direct consequence to the
legislators.  In those states which have referendums and where legislators
waste  taxpayers money by enacting a stream of laws which are subsequently
ruled unconstitutional, why don't libertarians propose a law which would
financially penalize those congressrats which voted in favor of passage.
I'm sure it will be tough to write something which itself will pass
constitutional muster, but think of the headlines!

--Steve


PGP mail preferred
Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schear              | tel: (702) 658-2654
CEO                       | fax: (702) 658-2673
First ECache Corporation  |
7075 West Gowan Road      |
Suite 2148                |
Las Vegas, NV 89129       | Internet: azur@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

        I know not what instruments others may use,
        but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt.

        SHOW ME THE DIGITS!