From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 13:28:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)
Message-ID: <199708240526.AAA28542@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 00:04:51 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
> Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits

> Perhaps so, but that says nothing about the federal gov't 
> enforcing the First Amendment to the US Constitution against
> the states, irrespective of the provisions of their constitutions
> or other laws.  It is a difficult thing to get from "Congress 
> shall make no law" to "No gov't anywhere in this country 
> shall make any law," but we've managed to do it, probably to
> our credit on the whole.

If that was what he had it would truly be great, unfortunately we don't have
that. What we DO have is the feds and the state governments doing everything
they can to get around limitations such as this. In effect we have exactly
the opposite of your supposition.

The fed's are currently deciding on just exactly how federal employees can
express their religous beliefs. Do you really think the founding fathers
were so stupid that they wouldn't have thought of this if their intent
was to truly prevent any government from enacting such laws?

 
				ARTICLE I. 
 
	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, 
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 
 
 
If you really believe what you state above I have a few of questions:

[well actualy I have a lot of questions, but it would be pressing the
 point I suspect]

 *  How does the federal government justify their limitations on the
    Native American Church or the Coptic Church when federal laws
    relating to religion are clearly prohibited?

 *  If we truly have freedom of speech and the fed's respect that,
    just exactly who passed the CDA?

 *  If we truly have freedom of speech and the fed's respect that,
    why is the fight for strong encryption being fought so hard?

 *  If we truly have freedom of press AND the feds are the only agency
    per the Constitutio to regulate inter-state commerce then how can
    one state arrest citizens of another state when the 'crime' in
    state of the accussed isn't a crime?

 *  Why has the federal government NEVER passed a law detailing the
    process we may use to petition the government for greivences? It
    clearly is not meant as a reference to the courts.


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |          Participation requires more than just bitching!           |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http:// www.ssz.com/  |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|