From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:29:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: 2A (fwd)
Message-ID: <199809122052.PAA17723@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 22:00:12 -0400
> From: David Miller <dm0@avana.net>
> Subject: 2A

> The thought I had (actually, it was explained to me), about the
> BoR is that, you know that in contracts/law, if there is a conflict
> within a text/body of law, that which was legally written last
> overrides the earlier statement.  (e.g. the fine print is always
> at *the bottom* of contracts).  Think:  a law is passed saying
> that something is legal, now another one is passed saying that it
> is illegal... Which law wins?  The second one, obviously, so long
> as it was legally passed.

Contract law is civil law, the Constitution isn't civil law it is the
charter defining how the government is supposed to work. If we accept this
then no part of the Constitution is safe because it could be over-ridden
this way, clearly not what the founding fathers intended in practice or
principle.

> Well, same with the BoR/Admendments.  As AMENDMENTS, they override
> the main body of the Constitution, if there is a conflict.  This
> is plain, simple, contractual law, and holds anywhere that people
> negotiate contracts.
> 
> Consider:  The main body of the C says that the Senate can ratify
> treaties, such as the UN resolution to confiscate privately-owned
> small arms.  Yet there is the 2A.  Which wins?  The 2A because it
> is the overriding law of the land, higher than the authority of
> the main body of the C to give the Senate that power when there is
> a conflict between parts of the law.
> 
> Conclusion:  The UN should get your guns and ammo one bullet at a
> time.

This is lawyer bullshit, the 10th states very clearly, as well as the
last sentence of the inter-state commerce clause, that the Constitution has
to be taken in toto. The legislators and courts don't get to pick and choose.

Furthermore, since the amendments dealing with prohabition were passed prior
to the 16th they set a precedence that requires that subsequent amendemnts
must specify what they are changing, the 16th doesn't do that. One could
argue on that alone that the 16th as currently worded is invalid since it
didn't meet prior precedence and by extension wasn't passed legaly.


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------