From: Steve Schear <schear@lvdi.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:55:19 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199712141834.MAA02564@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <v03102808b0bb7a5ab22c@[208.129.55.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I think both you and Bell are in relatively good agreement on the problem, differing mainly on the means of a solution.  Although, like you I have never considerd engaging in acts of violence to right the wrongs in our legal structure, I also do not believe that the changes you wish can reasonably be expected to be achieved through legal and democratic means within our lifetimes.

Almost from the start of our nation, the actions of the Federal branches have proven that the Anti-Federalists were right, that the Constitution (as accepted) would not prevent their power grab.  Wasn't it Article 2, Section 18 which was intended to prevent such abuse, and which was easily overcome by the SC's liberal interpretation in Maubery vs. Madison?  

Little has changed, nor it it likely to, within the system.  There's too much inertia and entrenched economic and political interest, including the electorate's acquiessence to limitations of their liberties in exchange for real or imagined protection from harm.  I can think of no instance when changes, of the magnitude of which you speak, were made during a peaceful transition.  Can you?

>Jim Choate wrote:
>The difference is that I believe the system can be fixed, yes it will take
>time, yes it will require a certain level of jamming unsavory morsels of the
>Constitution down some tyrants throats; but it is doable.
>

[snip]
>If you or anyone else doesn't like the way it works then get an amendment
>passed that changes the way the rules operate.
>
>In short my main bitch is that the Supreme Court of the US doesn't say
>"Ain't our problem" nearly enough and when it does speak the question it
>should be asking is "Does the Constitution allow this power to the federal
>govt. within the constraints of the 9th and 10th?". Neither Congress or
>the Supreme Court act in a manner to honor either the letter or the spirit
>of the Constitution and in particular the 9th and 10th Amendments.
>
>I believe that *every* federal law and regulation *must* be able to
>demonstrate its lineage from one or more sentences in the Constitution
>before it is applicable and legal by the 10th.
>
>Personaly, I want to bring charges against Congress and the Supreme Court of
>the US for actions contrary to those granted them under the Constitution. In
>short, I want to impeach the whole kit and kaboodle.


--Steve