From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 03:49:56 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Further costs of war
Message-ID: <199711241934.UAA23715@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Robert Hettinga wrote:
>Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th
>being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what
>the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately.

Personally, I do not believe in the infallibility of the Supreme
Court.  The people on the Court are just people.  They can make
mistakes.  They can have ulterior motives.  They can be corrupt.

The Constitution is understood by many people to be something like a
charter in which the people of the United States granted the
government certain powers, reserving all others to themselves.

The Constitution has meaning.  The Supreme Court may not amend this
meaning, it may only interpret it.  When the Court makes a decision
which is obviously not consistent with the meaning of the Constitution
it is reasonable to say that the Court is in error.  In an extreme
situation many people would say that it is reasonable for the people
of the United States to revoke the Charter granted to this government.

Consider this scenario: Chief Justice Rehnquist appears in Court
wearing a tutu.  He declares that the Court has just decided that in
emergency situations it is proper and Constitutional for the Supreme
Court to take control of the government to protect democracy.

Would it be reasonable to say that the Constitution had changed or
would it be reasonable to put the Chief Justice in the loony bin?

Let's take an example from history.  The United States decides to
enter World War I.  People who are opposed to this war and to the
draft make speeches opposing both policies.  A law is passed
forbidding this activity.  The Chief Justice declares that speech may
be controlled if it is akin to "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie
house."  Following this logic, the government jails people who speak
against the War and the draft.  One of these people, Eugene Debs,
campaigns from jail for the Presidency and gets about a million votes.

Would it be proper to conclude that speaking against the War may be
punished Constitutionally or that the Court had failed to carry out
its duties?

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBNHm/SZaWtjSmRH/5AQEifgf/U1n6bFaEy66IyuezGhSG0AbDPCKBfwWd
iMuqhy5ZoHqJR/v0RHw2Wupp3ACuYe/CgUrrftN0bzr8WaWThMr8H2kxsnxNoHX4
0cowJfnRxnJkSNoFKYa+t3y/otjYW+YRWBfoyKktvwiK30r7H2jisKPAoOCir8NP
W5P10QhzKAvCp/16sCEpqYbzbXDnaiY9D55E6Ew7mLEECeGm+raATUvayksA+BT/
RNhZXQTYMYk7AfeqKxp7fuikQegTRbwC8d4G0jT6kduFOWvI4YaQIKam+eR8Dec9
jzDO5ckcPLaB80p6jQEc0nob4ltBz4mbDqqnc2YBfsAvTSKBIGKKCQ==
=IzrC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----