From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:50:57 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Mad as Hell (fwd)
Message-ID: <199711130452.WAA10417@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:02:38 -0800
> From: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
> Subject: Re: Mad as Hell

> Tim May wrote:
> 
> >Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience,
> >spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern
> >version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown
> >with the federal government. 
> 
> This sounds interesting!  This is what I had in mind, in that other thread
> about "What Will Revolution Look Like"
> 
> >[...]A merchandise ine with caps, t-shirts with the blazing
> >l "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned.
> 
> However, this is unfortunate.   Trinkets like these may bring in useful and
> needed funds, but they take away from the seriousness of the effort, from
> the respect the cause deserves.  They make the wearers look like weenies
> playing a child's game, rather than serious individuals in their rights
> minds with the concentration and commitment to do important work for the
> purpose at hand.
> 
> (In a silly mood, I could see a gathering of such supporters in a large,
> crowded courtroom, all wearing T-shirts saying, "It's *ShowTime* !!!" )

A reasonable motto should be something like:

10th?

I'm all for a political faction, they really don't have to be as organized
as the Big Two & Little Third would like you to believe. Perhaps the
concepts of multiple political parties with their own popularist views has
become truly effective because of the impact of technology in particularly
on concept expression, and communications.

What needs to happen is a small group of suitably inspired whiz kids need to
get together and form a complete plan for creating legal cases to decide the
respective aspects of the 10th.

 
				ARTICLE X. 
 
	The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, 
or to the people. 


In some manner the question of whether the first sentence is an implicit
limitation of *all* laws and regulations at the federal level needs to be
tested. In other words, each and every law *must* trace its existance to a
specific set of sentences in the Constitution. If it could be found to be so
then each and every law and regulation at the federal would have to pass
constitutional review at every stage of its existance within the federal
government. Then a case needs to found of some situation say the founding of
a church based on smoking marijuana was a illegal entity under the 1st where
it is found that such organizations were illegal (rather trivial I suspect).
At this point the wording of the 1st becomes *much* more specific.

 
				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. 
 

Under this light it becomes glaringly clear that not only is Congress not
allowed to even discuss legislation respecting claims of religion. Per the
10th that would fall to the individual states to resolve under their
individual constitutions. This would force many of the major social issues
onto a regional basis where they could be dealt with in a plurality of ways.
Issues regarding infringement of private ownership of weapons becomes
glaringly clear in that light. It simply isn't a federal issue. Per the 10th
it must be dealt with at the state level. Other issues such as no searches
except under warrant issued with probable causes automaticaly prohibits
various sorts of searches including samples of body tissue. The issue of the
use of federal military troops for any sorts of operations except those
respecting the operations of the defence of the US would be clearly decided.
Such silliness as the Supreme Court finding that teachers have the
Constitutional right to search kids because of supposed criminal wrong doing
is clearly shown for what it is, an violation of an individuals civil
rights. Warrants can only be issues on probably cause. Under these sorts of
conditions the various consensual crimes our government now routinely
practices would end. This is vary scary to the status quo crowd. And here
lies the rub, the initial 10th test cast must be irrefusable concerning the
10th. The question then becomes, "What is the issue?". What law or aspect
thereof is found so compelling that the Supreme Court *must* accept the case
for ruling *and* must find in favor of Constitutional review. For maximum
impact somebodies life must hang in the balance in such a manner that some
fundamental question of legal lineage is brought forth. This reduces the
issue to its most fundamental, "Is the right of the state more important
than the life of the individual?"

Why some lawyer has not used this basic question in the numerous murder
trials is truly amazing. If he wins a legal precidence is set. If he looses
and gets to appeal. Then walk that appeals train right up to the fundamental
question of the 10th. Forcing the Supreme Court to either reject, stating
clearly their answer in favor of the majority, or else to review and find
that laws must pass Constitutional muster. Either way the question gets
answered.


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |    The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there   |
   |    be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.       |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                       -Alan Greenspan-             |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|