From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 09:03:44 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)
Message-ID: <199708240101.UAA27366@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:13:09 -0700
> From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
> Subject: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits

> There's a landmine here, of course. Namely, the issue of whether states may
> impose restrictions which are "unconstitutional." To some states rights
> folks, as I assume Jim Choate may be, the answer is often "of course." To
> some libertarians, the answer is often "of course not." A good example to
> consider is "free speech." The First Amendment talks about Congress shall
> make no law...does this mean California may ban certain books, restrict
> certain religions, or impose censorship on the press?

If permitted by the California Constituion absolutely. It's called freedom
of expression, a weird sort of extension to the pursuit of life, liberty,
and happiness. If the citizens don't like it they can elect another
representative to change the law next time around. The right to liberty
implies the right to give it away.

For a democracy to work the group of people making the laws must be
relatively small, otherwise we see the sorts of abuses we currently have
because we have lost respect for others (ie another state) to decide their
fate indipendant of our own.

I am not an advocate of federal or state rights, and most definitely NOT
any sort of Libertarian. I am a strict Constitutionalist and believe that
if the federal government wants to take on a new job not explicity assigned
in the Constitition they MUST pass an amendment per the method detailed in
the Constitution.

Prior to the 14th (which only forces privileges and immunities, and I
utterly reject any claim that a right is a privilege) this was exactly the
case. The founding fathers wanted to see a multiplicity of states with a
variety of laws some limited some actions and others not. The idea behind
this is that if a state passes laws that are too restrictive it is possible
to reverse the insult in a reasonable time and if it proves impossible to
change it (say because of massive public support) then they can move to a
state where such activity is allowed, thus robbing the state of the taxes
and other benefits it derives from such residents. The idea is that if the
states are given a level of equality with the federal government there will
be a moderating effect on tryanny at all levels.

> (Most folks would say "Of course not." But on what basis can individual
> states and municipalities override the Second Amendment?)

Read the 10th. The 2nd. does NOT limit a states right to regulate such
activity.


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |          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      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|