1997-12-29 - Re: Abandonment of legal precedence… (fwd)

Header Data

From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Message Hash: fd47840f10bb93a399e700e49f2a58be1a9a45eb3c0b7f5e57e5d3ad42b7c218
Message ID: <199712291853.MAA03050@einstein.ssz.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-12-29 18:35:53 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 02:35:53 +0800

Raw message

From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 02:35:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Abandonment of legal precedence... (fwd)
Message-ID: <199712291853.MAA03050@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net>
> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 97 11:51:15 -0600
> Subject: Re: Abandonment of legal precedence...

> >The *entire* point of the forming of the United States over 200 years ago
> >was the specific intent to break with precedence, in particular *English*
> >precedence, and find a new way.
> 
> Well that may sound nice and give you all kinds of warm fuzzies the fact
> of the matter is English Common Law is the basis of the Judicial System in
> America as it was before the break with England.
> 
> While the revolution changed the political form of government it did
> little to change the judical system. Murder was still murder, theift was
> still theift, contracts were still valid before and after the war.

So your premise is that the changes that were implimented at the time of the
Constitution were all the changes that the founding fathers had in mind? You
hold that while it is clear that the founding fathers recognized that the
quantity of change required was such that they would not be able to
impliment it realisticaly since nobody would accept that range of change at
one time? You further hold that the Constitution is not a document that holds
an ideal of freedom for us which will require generations of striving? You
seriously expect to get up one morning and find that no new laws will be
needed and that we have solved all the issues respecting human interaction?
You further hold that with 200+ years of English jurisprudence behind us we
have actualy attained that nirvana?

In short, you would have us take it all - the good and the bad - and ignore
our right to pick and choose what works for us?

If we accept your view, blacks would still be slaves and women would still
not be able to vote, and men couldn't vote unless they were landed.

Do me a favor, please don't try to lick my hand.


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |      Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make       |
   |      violent revolution inevitable.                                |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                          John F. Kennedy           |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|






Thread