Conference back40::soapbox

    
    I agree that we are headed in the wrong direction. The examples
    speak for themselves. The whole Constitution is under attack,
    and by many different political factions, including the liberals
    (2nd amendment), the Clintonistas (4th and 5th amendment),
    the religious right (first amendment, among others), etc.
    
    We're in doo doo.
    
    -b

    >We're in doo doo...
    
    Clear, concise noting!  That's what I like. :-)
    
    

    It's also worth noting that the panel's major concern was
    that we are actually moving toward a "totalitarian democracy",
    namely where majority rule du jour is more important than
    the underlying principles of the law (such as the Constitution).

    The pernicious effect of gun control is an example of how
    the rest of the Constitution can be eroded by popular demand.
    But GC advocates refuse to see it that way.

    -b

    What did I say?  

    wait'll bb sees what you said.  He insists that 'totalitarian' is just
    a made-up word meaning nothing.  Letting him know that talking heads
    actually said it and that you're interested will just make him worse...
    
    DougO

    	Vote against majority rule!

    You all might end up just like us Canadians. Oh, the _horror_ . The
    _horror_ !

re .3

>   that we are actually moving toward a "totalitarian democracy",
>   namely where majority rule du jour is more important than
>   the underlying principles of the law (such as the Constitution).


interesting. if you had a system where all major political decisions were
taken by referendum, would you call such a system "totalitarian democracy"
or would you call it "grass-roots democracy"?


andreas.

    
    Well, OK, DougO, I'll rise to the bait.  What do you think it means ?
    
    Total is a breakfast cereal with the vitamins thrown in as a come-on.
    
    The so-called totalitarian governments of the mid-twentieth century
    were actually ridiculously less-than-total even by design.  If you
    are the bug, the windshield looks awesome.  But it isn't totalitarian,
    and a few feet away, your bug brethren proceed in ignorant bliss.
    
      bb

    The absolute beauty of a democracy, or a republican democracy is that
    everyone gets to be equally protected and petition for change.
    
    The Constitution provides the basic rights of every citizen and these
    are never to be abridged.  What we have experienced over the decades is
    that groups that can not move their agenda forward throught the
    electoral process have tried to do it through the judicial process.
    
    It does not take a scholar to see that SCPTUS decisions have really had
    to reach to find Constitutional provisions for or against certain
    activities that realistically aren't there.
    
    That being said, we have a way to avoid these problems and it's called
    the amendment process.  Instead of re-interpreting the Constitution,
    change it.  If it doesn't pass, then go work for support, but stop
    extending the reach of government beyond what it legally is.
    

    > Well, OK, DougO, I'll rise to the bait.  What do you think it means ?  
    
    Lemme give you the book-jacket blurb version (literally).
    
    The Origins of Totalitarianism
    New addition with added prefaces
    Hannah Arendt
    
    "Recognized on publication as the definitive account of its subject and
    ten years later hailed as a classic by the Times Literary Supplement,
    this remarkable book has been foremost wherever the characteristics and
    problems of the twentieth century are discussed.  Dr. Arendt's study
    begins with an account of the rise of antisemitism in Central and
    Western European Jewish history in the nineteenth century and continues
    with an examination of European colonial imperialism from 1884 to the
    outbreak of World War I.  The final section deals with the
    institutions, organizations, and operations of totalitarian movements
    and governments, focusing on the two genuine forms of totalitarian
    dominion in history- Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.  Dr. Arendt
    discusses the transformation of classes into masses, the role of
    propaganda in dealing with the nontotalitarian world, and the use of
    terror, the very essence of this form of government.  And in a
    briliiant concluding chapter she analyzes the nature of isolation and
    loneliness as preconditions for total domination."
    
    (the above is from the book jacket (1973 HBJ edition), as I said.)
    
    "This has probably been the most influential single book on the theme
    of totalitarianism...Linking the Nazi and Stalinist phenomena as
    essentially identical and as transcending all traditional concepts of
    'left' and 'right,' [sic] Miss [sic] Arendt was instrumental both in
    preparing the way for a whole series of studies of totalitarianism and
    in challenging the adequacy of 'common-sense' approaches to the
    malignancy of political pathology."
                      -The Foreign Affairs 50-year Bibliography (1972)
    
    This is to say that authorities in the field recognize and use the term
    'totalitarian' as a way to summarize the analyses of Dr Arendt and
    others and to refer to the abstract idea.  Your personal discomfort
    with the term is merely regretable and in no way diminishes its
    usefulness.  I'll close with another, quite recent, quote.  This is
    from an article ("The step-fatherland") discussing various aspects of
    Germany's history in this century, and Germans' attitudes towards it,
    published in the Economist issue of 8 Apr 95 (p75).  The article
    actually used the term twice, but the context in each case is lengthy;
    I'll only provide one.
    
    "...Though not alone in wrestling with the Holocaust, German historians
    have had to struggle most.  Countries like a past to be proud of, and
    Germany's history is still widely, if mistakenly, felt to thwart a
    normal patriotism: to clock acceptance that Germany has legitimate
    national interests and might one day, heaven forfend, even have to
    fight a foreign Hitler.
    
    "With exceptions such a Fritz Fischer, in the years after 1949
    German historians engaged in deep denial.  They represented the Nazis
    as a criminal clique who had mysteriously hijacked a nation.  Then in
    the 1960s, an army of mostly younger German scholars assembled the
    evidence against the Nazis' accessories: industrialists and bankers,
    churchmen and judges, doctors, army officers, Prussian landowners,
    without whom neither the Nazi rise nor the Holocaust would have been
    possible.
    
    "In a third phase, starting in the 1970s, this view was corrected to
    acknowledge the left's contributions to killing off the Weimar
    Republic: vacillating Social Democrats and street-fighting communists. 
    Ernst Nolte, the pied-piper of the right-wing historians, wanted to go
    further, touching off the Historikerstreit (historians' dispute) of the
    late 1980s.  Nazism, he argued, was a pre-emptive reaction- wicked and
    illegitimate, to be sure- against the equivalent barbarism of
    Bolshevism.  In his view, Hitler learned genocide from Lenin, while Mr
    Bellack [a soldier referenced previously - DougO] and countless other
    young Germans were among other things fighting the good fight to save
    their country from Bolshevism.
    
    "Few of his conservative colleagues followed Mr Nolte's pipetune that
    far.  Yet the crumbling of the Soviet empire in the late 1980s revived
    the historical fashion of the 1950s which lumped Nazism and communism
    together as failed totalitarian twins.  And German unity made urgent,
    or seemed to, a search- welcomed by Chancellor Kohl- for history that
    stressed the positive..."
    
    DougO

    
    Yes, I was aware that "Totalitarianism" is a 20th Century concept,
    and came from academia.  But what does it add to our understanding
    that words like tyranny or despotism do not ?  Look at the long list
    of tyrannies of George III in our Declaration.  Clearly, TJ/BF/JA
    considered G3 a tyrant, but they wouldn't have understood the word
    "totalitarian".  The genocides committed by mid-twentieth century
    leaders were certainly gruesome, but were not new to history - see
    Rome.  What the academics thought they saw in the post mortem was
    some hideous new permanent ghastliness.  But horror does not make for
    clear thinking, and nowadays  these tragedies seem like tawdry scams
    seen out the rearview mirror of history, and unoriginal ones at that.
    
      bb

    > Yes, I was aware that "Totalitarianism" is a 20th Century concept,
    > and came from academia.  But what does it add to our understanding
    > that words like tyranny or despotism do not ? 
    
    Modern police state methods and complete control of the subject
    populace through terror, the 'big lie' as official state propaganda,
    and several other salient points are all part of the analysis.  If
    you insist, I'll review the book again ( haven't read it in a decade.)
    But it won't be soon, Lessing and McNamara and a biography of Wilde are
    all open at the moment.
    
    > The genocides committed by mid-twentieth century leaders were 
    > certainly gruesome, but were not new to history - see Rome.  What 
    > the academics thought they saw in the post mortem was some hideous 
    > new permanent ghastliness. 
    
    oh, nonsense.  You may take it as a given that the academics are
    certainly as well acquainted with the atrocities of history as you are.
    What you cannot do is ascribe their analyses to sloppy or 'unoriginal'
    thinking without examining the case more closely.  
    
    DougO

    Re: .13
    
    >Look at the long list of tyrannies of George III in our Declaration.  
    >Clearly, TJ/BF/JA considered G3 a tyrant
    
    Appearances are deceiving.  The revolutionaries were mad at the
    ministers, not the king.  Unfortunately for them, they had to justify a
    revolution, which meant "proving" that the king was bad.  So they
    trumped up a bunch of charges, which pretty much amount to "He doesn't
    ignore bad ministers."

    Re: 15
    
    I'm not sure what you reply was meant to add, but if I understand your
    intent, it is that King George III was a great guy.  I don't think I
    have ever read anything similar in any treatment of the period.  At
    best, he was portrayed as being totally uninvolved with America and
    wouldn't get involved when he was petitioned.
    
    I suppose you can blame his ministers, but George was the King.
    
    I guess I have seen it all now - King George III was a victim.  I
    suppose the follow up to this is that those who fought for American
    independence were the aggressors trying to overthrow a benign and
    benevolent culture.
    

    
    Isn't there a movie out about George ?  Haven't seen it yet.
    
    I'll guess Chelsea has some English/European connection.  TJ really
    didn't like Georgie.  Sure, there's hyperbole in the Declaration, as
    in all politics.  And in academia when they make up new words like
    "totalitarianism".  Each new wickedness has to have a name, after all !
    
    Then later, they bash you with it.  We'll hear how Newt or Janet Reno
    is Totalitarian !!  Yes, yes, the BATF are the SS, and David Koresh
    was Elie Wiesel.
    
      bb

    >I'm not sure what you reply was meant to add, but if I understand your
    >intent, it is that King George III was a great guy.
    
    Wow, that's a stretch even for YOU, Mr.Rocush 8^).

    
      "He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns,
       and destroyed the Lives of our People.
    
       He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of Foreign
       Mercenaries to complete the works of Death, Desolation, and
       Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy,
       scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally
       unworthy of the Head of a civilized Nation"
    
       etc, blah-blah-blah
    

        [fwds deleted]

                Subject: Proper Proposal - Example and Feedback
                -----------------------------------------------

    The Court of King George III
    London, England

    July 10, 1776

    Mr. Thomas Jefferson
    c/o The Continental Congress
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Dear Mr. Jefferson:

    We have read your "Declaration of Independence" with great interest.
    Certainly, it represents a considerable undertaking, and many of your
    statements do merit serious consideration.  Unfortunately, the
    Declaration as a whole fails to meet recently adopted specifications
    for proposals to the Crown, so we must return the document to you for
    further refinement. The questions which follow might assist you in your
    process of revision: 

    1.  In your opening paragraph you use the phrase "the Laws of Nature
        and Nature's God".  What are these laws?  In what way are they the
        criteria on which you base your central arguments?  Please document
        with citations from the recent literature. 

    2.  In the same paragraph you refer to the "opinions of mankind". Whose
        polling data are you using?  Without specific evidence, it seems to
        us the "opinions of mankind" are a matter of opinion. 

    3.  You hold certain truths to be "self-evident".  Could you please
        elaborate.  If they are as evident as you claim then it should not
        be difficult for you to locate the appropriate supporting
        statistics. 

    4.  "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" seem to be the goals
        of your proposal.  These are not measurable goals.  If you were to
        say that "among these is the ability to sustain an average life
        expectancy in six of the 13 colonies of at least 55 years, and to
        enable newspapers in the colonies to print news without outside
        interference, and to raise the average income of the colonists by
        10 percent in the next 10 years", these could be measurable goals.
        Please clarify. 

    5.  You state that "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
        of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
        it, and to institute a new Government...".  Have you weighed this
        assertion against all the alternatives?  What are the trade-off
        considerations?

    6.  Your description of the existing situation is quite extensive. Such
        a long list of grievances should precede the statement of goals,
        not follow it.  Your problem statement needs improvement. 

    7.  Your strategy for achieving your goal is not developed at all. You
        state that the colonies "ought to be Free and Independent States",
        and that they are "Absolved from All Allegiance to the British
        Crown".  Who or what must change to achieve this objective?  In
        what way must they change?  What specific steps will you take to
        overcome the resistance? How long will it take? We have found that
        a little foresight in these areas helps to prevent careless errors
        later on.  How cost-effective are your strategies? 

    8.  Who among the list of signatories will be responsible for
        implementing your strategy?  Who conceived it?  Who provided the
        theoretical research? Who will constitute the advisory committee?
        Please submit an organization chart and vitas of the principal
        investigators. 

    9.  You must include an evaluation design.  We have been requiring this
        since Queen Anne's War. 

    10. What impact will your problem have?  Your failure to include any
        assessment of this inspires little confidence in the long-range
        prospects of your undertaking. 

    11. Please submit a PERT diagram, an activity chart, itemized budget,
        and manpower utilization matrix. 


    We hope that these comments prove useful in revising your "Declaration
    of Independence".  We welcome the submission of your revised proposal.
    Our due date for unsolicited proposals is July 31, 1776.  Ten copies
    with original signatures will be required. 


    Sincerely,


    Management Analyst to the British Crown

    Re: .16
    
    >I'm not sure what you reply was meant to add
    
    It was meant to subtract -- to negate the false assertion you made
    about the FF regarding GIII as a tyrant.  They didn't.
    
    >but if I understand your intent, it is that King George III was a
    >great guy
    
    Your premise is false.
    
    >At best, he was portrayed as being totally uninvolved with America and 
    >wouldn't get involved when he was petitioned.
    
    You see?  There _is_ middle ground between "tyrant" and "great guy."  I
    have no idea why you decided I couldn't possibly be somewhere in that
    middle ground.

            <<< Note 412.21 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    It was meant to subtract -- to negate the false assertion you made
>    about the FF regarding GIII as a tyrant.  They didn't.
    
    	On what do you base that?  
    
    	I have nothing of substance to counter it, but that doesn't 
    	make you correct.
    
    	In the movie 1776 the dialogue roughly goes:
    
    >	(delegate from Maryland) "Mr Jefferson.  Perhaps we should change 
    >	the phrase 'his tyranny' to something a little less offensive..."
    >
    >	(Jefferson) "King George *IS* a tyrant!"
    
    	It is my understanding that the movie is considered by historians
    	as relatively accurate.  I can't say that every jot and tittle is,	
    	so I can't say for sure that this piece of dialogue is.  It is
    	also my understanding that history says that the FF saw George
    	as a tyrant.

    Re: .22
    
    >On what do you base that?
    
    Between AP American History and several classes in college on the
    pre-Civil War period (with a particular interest in the Revolution),
    I figure I covered the subject well enough to have a reasonable idea
    what I'm talking about.
    
    >In the movie 1776 the dialogue roughly goes:
    
    Oh, yeah, and in the minutes of the Continental Congress, you find
    numerous instances of people singing, "Sit down, John."

            <<< Note 412.23 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Between AP American History and several classes in college on the
>    pre-Civil War period (with a particular interest in the Revolution),
>    I figure I covered the subject well enough to have a reasonable idea
>    what I'm talking about.
    
    	OK.  When I was in scouts as a kid we had a scoutmaster who was
    	a Revolutionary War historian, and he said that George was a
    	tyrant.  Maybe you were out sick the day they covered the
    	tyrant stuff...  :^)
    
    	It still seems that you are making your statement purely on your
    	say-so.
    
>    >In the movie 1776 the dialogue roughly goes:
>    
>    Oh, yeah, and in the minutes of the Continental Congress, you find
>    numerous instances of people singing, "Sit down, John."
    
    	Oh, but I'll bet that you'll find historical documents that
    	clearly show John Adams as being obnoxious and disliked.
    
    	Are you saying that the minutes do not show that Thomas Jefferson
    	said that George III was a tyrant?

    Maybe I missed it, but didn't George III appoint his ministers?  That
    would seem to make him responsible for the actions of those same
    ministers.  If he didn't care what they did as far as the Colonies were
    concerned, then I think that may be worse than taking direct actions
    himself.
    
    If the end result od what he did or allowed to happen is tyranny, then
    he's a tyrant.
    
    Thank you.
    

    
    Yes, I'm afraid to say we are headed towards a totalitarian 
    government, albeit very slowly.
    
    I did not want to believe this, but watching what has been going on
    since Oka city, makes me reach this conclusion.  The final straw came
    this morning, when I heard that the town of Sharon had passed a law
    against smoking in public (outdoors).  Chalk up another behavior
    required by the people who are looking otu for my health (I'm a
    non smoker).
    
    The move towards totalitarianism won't come from a military coup or
    any obvious "takeover".  Rather it will be a creeping cancer where
    we loose a little at a time.  And this has been happening for quite
    some time already.
    
    At the top of the list is economic freedom, where I am free of the
    goverernment taking money away from me.   About 20 years ago I used to
    have to work till late April to pay the government for my contribution
    to the greater good.  Now I work till late July.  
    
    Another area I have been loosing freedoms, is in the area of free
    choice.  Think of how government has begun telling us how to behave
    and act.  Usually it seems in the name of protecting ourselves from
    ourselves.  Think of the meaning of the seatbelt law in Ma.  They are
    saying that they know better, so they are going to tell me what to do.
    
    Just like in Sharon, in the name of a greater good, I get to loose
    another choice.
    
    

    Re: 26
    
    Very interesting entry.  Pehaps we should turn this note into a list of
    all of the government rules, regulations and mandates that have taken
    place over the past 20-30 years.  I think people will then be able to
    see the direction this government is taking and why there is a growing
    unrest with government.
    
    Unfortunately we keep getting the "greater good" answer on all of these
    and over time just accept more and more intrusion in more and more
    trivial matters.
    
    I think the references to seat belts and smoking are great examples. 
    You can add to that environmental regulations that restrict your
    ability to use your own property because of a "perceived" impact.
    
    I will be very interested to see other such examples.
    

    Watched C-SPAN last night... a very impressive Congress-
    critter by the name of Taurin (oh $#!+, now that I think
    about it, that's not his name at all... he's a Dem from
    Looosiana...)

    Anyway, he was talking about a land dispute case in his
    district in which the EPA, in a rather severe breech of
    federal law, shared certain documents with the ecofascist
    Sierra Club; documents that the EPA refused to disclose
    (despite a FoIA request) with the actual land owners.
    The paper trail was simply amazing, and a very good example
    of just how little regard the federal government has for
    the citizens of this country.

    The federal government cannot be fixed with subtle change.
    I still believe that change can be had through the ballot
    box, but I also believe that the house must be completely
    torn down and rebuilt. Count me as one who would like to
    see the current federal government eviscerated...

    -b

.26    
>   Yes, I'm afraid to say we are headed towards a totalitarian 
>   government, albeit very slowly.

you are afraid you're moving towards,
- a one-party state?
- total press censorship?
- police terrorism?
- a government propaganda machine which will disconnect you from
  news of abroad?
- ...



andreas.

    
    
    	re: .29
    
    	all of the above....
    
    
    

>    <<< Note 412.28 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>

>    The federal government cannot be fixed with subtle change.
>    I still believe that change can be had through the ballot
>    box, but I also believe that the house must be completely
>    torn down and rebuilt. Count me as one who would like to
>    see the current federal government eviscerated...

Yah, me too. I really get discouraged with the whole voting process... more
of a big media circus than anything of use. I haven't given up yet, but I
think we need fundamental change to see any results. Simply voting in a small
majority of some other party aint gonna do it. Both are contributing to our
slide into totalitarianism.

It would be nice if we had a way of challenging junk bills and laws without
dragging it all through the courts for years and $$$$$. It's rather stupid
that Congress can pass any un-Constitutional crap it sees fit in a special
session on Christmas Eve with all of the opposition gone home, yet the above
is our only choice.

.30ff, i was going to ask which principles this totalitarian government 
was based on. but judging from the text it appears to be feminism, minority 
rights, and environmentalism. am i close?


andreas.

    
    re: 412.29
    
    you are afraid you're moving towards,
    - a one-party state?
    - total press censorship?
    - police terrorism?
    - a government propaganda machine which will disconnect you from
      news of abroad?
    -
    
    all of the above.  
    
   > - a one-party state?
       if the differences between the two parties is small, then it 
       is a one party system.  If it were democrats and  libertarians
       or republicans and socialists then I'd have a meaningfull choice.
       Actually the ones in control seem to be the unelected officials,
       maybe that means NAGE (national association of government employees)
       is the party in charge already?  
   > - total press censorship?
       the press does practice censorship.  Just ask the NY Times -
    	"All the news that's fit to print" but it's there definition of
        "fit", not mine.  "Total" censorship is not required.
   > - police terrorism?
    	Like Waco?  Or the incident in Boston where a 75 year old minister died
        of a heart attack, after cops burst in his apt.  etc etc.
   > - a government propaganda machine which will disconnect you from
   >   news of abroad?
       How much do we really know? 
       How would I prove the truth of this one way or the other?
    
    

>                       <<< Note 412.34 by PATE::CLAPP >>>
>   > - a government propaganda machine which will disconnect you from
>   >   news of abroad?
>       How much do we really know? 
>       How would I prove the truth of this one way or the other?

>              -< If you don't have a shortwave radio, get one. >-

...no use. bbc international, deutsche welle and other foreign air waves will
be scrambled.



andreas.

    
    
    
      Can the social problems that are engulfing the U.S. be solved
      within a "democracy".
    
    
      Ed

    
    
>      Can the social problems that are engulfing the U.S. be solved
>      within a "democracy".
    
    	Maybe with a Constitutional Federalist Republic they can!
    
    
    jim

    
    re: 412.35 by EST::RANDOLPH
    
    >>    -< If you don't have a shortwave radio, get one. >-
    
    Tom,
    
    you mean NPR doesn't tell me everything?
    
    al
    

    I find that in my town voting does make a different because when we
    vote we are voting a person into office based on the issues that they
    stand on...not as a democrat or republican...and because my town is
    small the count matters....
    
    We also have a annual town meeting to vote on the budget and any other
    articles that have been put on the warrent....
    
    I guess what I'm saying is that it would be great for this country to
    get back to the town meeting concept...you can actually stand up and
    and plead your case to the townspeople and sometimes you really make
    a different in the outcome of the vote...
    
    I always feel part of the process in town elections and town
    meetings...
    
    denise

    
    
    RE: .41   Quite  a condemning note considering yer poisonal name and
    all, bri.....
    
    
    Mike

    
    Well, ya know, not that I'm bitter or anything... :-) :-)
    
    -b

    RE: .40

    Town politics, yeah right.

    When I was a kid, my dad ran for assessor in our town. He
    worked for a major bank as the VP of their real estate
    division, and was board certified as a Resident Member
    of the Appraisal Institute... essentially he had a master's
    degree in real estate appraisal (a pretty handy thing
    for an assessor to have, wouldn't you agree?)

    He lost to a cookie salesman, who counted most of the
    town's drunken low life among his friends. All politics
    is local, as Tip O'Neil used to say, which is why politics
    blows.
                                             
    -b

re .34

> if the differences between the two parties is small, then it is a one party 
> system.  

difference is relative.

the difference between democrats and republicans becomes smaller the further 
away you move from either one of them.

there was no significant difference between the conservative, centrist and 
the social democrats to the nazis of the weimar republic.
this doesn't mean that the weimar republic was a one-party state just because 
the nazis failed to spot the difference between the established parties.

only the totalitarian nazi regime made sure there was no longer difference. 
the opposition was sent to prison camps.


>	the press does practice censorship.  Just ask the NY Times -
>    	"All the news that's fit to print" but it's there definition of
>       "fit", not mine.  "Total" censorship is not required.

censorship under a totalitarian regime means that all newspapers and 
broadcasters have to submit each individual news story to a central censorship 
body for approval prior to publishing/broadcasting their story.

this is a long way from the self-regulation which you describe.



>      How much do we really know? 
>      How would I prove the truth of this one way or the other?

how about checking with others? 
under a totalitarian regime you won't be able to.


>  > - police terrorism?
>  Like Waco?  Or the incident in Boston where a 75 year old minister died
>  of a heart attack, after cops burst in his apt.  etc etc.

you're not seriously suggesting that waco was an act of police terrorism, 
are you?

for words like 'police terrorism', 'fascim' and 'totalitarian', which are so 
readily used in here, you certainly appear to have very little appreciation 
of what these words really stood for when and where they left a mark.

yours is a free society. you appear not to appreciate this.



andreas.

.40>                 -< Bring Back Town Meetings for All >-


absolutely!

the body of politics that folks everywhere identify with most, is local 
politics.



andreas.

    
      Which is, essentially, my point.  I know a guy who said that
     "Star Wars" was a fascist series of movies - he even claimed
     the choreography for the "award scene" at the end of the first
     movie mimicked Nazi choreography at Nuremburg.
    
      With time, namecalling always loses its punch, and totalitarianism,
     racism, hate crimes, etc are no exception.  I recently heard about
     a revolution...IN MARGARINE PACKAGING.
    
      The only thing total about our Federal government is that it is a
     total mess.
    
      bb

    re .41
    
    Politics are Politics....I agree but from my own experience it is the
    only place that someone like me...high school grad...some college...and
    a little gumption to
    
    1) run for a local office and get voted in
    2) stand up in front of a group of people at a town meeting a state my
       case
    3) as well as be able to organize a grass roots campaign to fix
    something that is not working in the town and get it fix...
    
    As a citizen I am closer to making a different in at least my town
    than I am with all those representatives that are surpose to be 
    doing what I pay them to do...
    
    denise

    Denise,

    While I hear you about being able to effect change on the
    local level, it seems to me in practice that it doesn't
    happen. In the town I grew up, in the town I live in,
    and it seems just about everywhere else, town politics are
    about being a townie. What's at the top of everyone's
    qualification list when they run? Lived in (whatever
    town) all my life. BFD.

    Someone who is elected to office because they had all
    their high school chums vote for them does not represent
    me.

    As for the town meeting thing, sure, that works for some
    things, but I've never seen it work for anything very
    important. Mostly, it's a pretension that the old
    boy/gal network really isn't in charge...

    -b

    Hi,
    
    I lived in Boston for 25 years moved to Lancaster and have lived there
    17 years...yes, a long time...I didn't go to high school there...I
    don't know everyone in town...what I did was talk to people about my
    views on the issues...some people didn't like it some did...
    
    To be honest of lot of what I've done is bucking the old boy/girl
    network...
    
    What has given me the biggest sense of accomplishment is working in
    the town meeting area...yes, alot is politics....but alot of it is
    grass roots type of activity....people mobilize around a cause...thye
    go out and talk to people and get people excited about an issue...I
    think that this is what town government is all about...
    
    I certainly don't get that feeling watching CSpan....I get angry at
    some of the stuff I see going on...
    
    Town government is the closer that we are going to get to true
    democracy in this country...and I still believe it is really about
    "We the People"
    
    denise

    Re: .24
    
    >It still seems that you are making your statement purely on your
    >say-so.
    
    Since I haven't cited any references, of course.  But then, your only
    reference is a scoutmaster, which can hardly count for much more.
    
    >Are you saying that the minutes do not show that Thomas Jefferson said 
    >that George III was a tyrant?
    
    I don't know what precisely was said.  If it was said, then I'd have to
    determine if it was rhetoric or a statement of belief.
    
    Farmer George wasn't tyrannizing the colonists.  They were miffed
    because geography had pretty much let them run their own government
    (despite the fact that their charters said they were subject to the
    government back in England) and now the government was gathering the
    reins back in its own hands.  It was levying taxes, so colonists would
    pay for the services provided by the homeland (like naval protection of
    shipping against piracy) and it was paying the colonial governors
    directly, instead of having their salaries appropriated by the colonial
    legislatures (which certainly upset the balance of power).

            <<< Note 412.50 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Since I haven't cited any references, of course.  But then, your only
>    reference is a scoutmaster, which can hardly count for much more.
    
    	Very good.  That was self evident.  Now you see my point as
    	it applies to you.
    
>    I don't know what precisely was said.  If it was said, then I'd have to
>    determine if it was rhetoric or a statement of belief.
    
    	So then how can you say that the FF did not see George as
    	a tyrant?  (Well, you can SAY it, as you did, but you clearly
    	cannot support it.)
    
>    Farmer George wasn't tyrannizing the colonists.  ...
    
    	Says you.  :^)  The DofI disagrees with you.

    Re: Denise
    
    My Mom lives in Lancaster too.

    Re .27:
    
    > Pehaps we should turn this note into a list of all of the government
    > rules, regulations and mandates that have taken place over the past
    > 20-30 years.
    
    The disk drive Soapbox is on does not have enough room for that. 
    Seriously.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    
    Here in Md, the guvnah just signed 235 new pieces of legislation. 
    That's in 4 months since the new politiskunks have been in session.
    
    
    Mike

    Re: .51
    
    >Now you see my point
    
    "Now," nothing.  It's not like I've never, ever run across the idea
    before and was completely taken by surprise by your masterful subtlety.
    
    >So then how can you say that the FF did not see George as a tyrant? 
    
    Because I remember things that interest me, and I found it extremely
    interesting that they had to pretend they were making charges against
    the king when, in fact, they were mad at the ministers.
    
    >The DofI disagrees with you.
    
    The DofI is a political document, and parts of it should be taken with
    grains of salt.

    
    
    
    The question is, "who do we need to be afraid of the guvmint or
    the militia"?
    
    Which of the two are for protecting the Bill of Rights and the
    Constitution?
    
    
    Makes one wonder?
    
    Sin-te-da

    Re: .56
    
    >The question is, "who do we need to be afraid of the guvmint or
    >the militia"?
    
    "Both," springs immediately to mind.

    <---- beat me to it....

>   The question is, "who do we need to be afraid of the guvmint or
>   the militia"?

the one you have less control over.



andreas.

    .26
    
    AMEN!!! I've been saying the same thing now for at least 2 years... but
    I'm told I'm wrong.

            <<< Note 412.55 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    The DofI is a political document, and parts of it should be taken with
>    grains of salt.

    	How should we decide which parts?

>      Can the social problems that are engulfing the U.S. be solved
>      within a "democracy".
    
 Absolutely... 
    
    Get the government OUT of our social problems.  If we went back to the
    basics of our constitution we could solve the social problems of today. 
    When people had to begin to take responsibility for their behavior
    instead of using welfare to subsidize their behaviors we'd see change
    in our country.
    
    

    
    	But it had only been 14 years since they had won a World Series.
    
    	Now it's been 77 years ... and they're STILL losers, and greedy
    	losers to boot!!
    

>      Can the social problems that are engulfing the U.S. be solved
>      within a "democracy".

sure. get back to real democracy as in rule "by the people, for the people."

take the bottom third of your citizenry seriously.

once you stop shutting people out of your society, the social problems
will solve themselves!

it's THAT simple!


:-)

andreas.

    -1
    
    Agreed...
    
    The guvmint needs to give back some of the power to the people...
    We the people are using "uncle Sam" as a crutch for allot of the 
    problems that can be taken care without intervention from the 
    powers that be..
    
    Sin-te-da
    

    Why do you think so many of the Democrats, and some Republicans, in
    Congress are absolutely terrified of block grants.  this would break
    the hold of the Fed over local activities.  It would also limit their
    control of personal activities that are guaranteed in the Constitution,
    but do not agree with the socialist vision some in government have.
    
    Add to this the arguments about reducing taxes and eliminating
    spending.  Giving or not giving funds to local government insures that
    they will do exactly what the Fed wants.  this obviously flies in the
    face of the intent of the Constitution of a limited Federal Government. 
    the life-blood of the Fed is taxes.  That is why all of the liberals
    keep screaming about cutting taxes and creating class warfare so thay
    can insure the uninterrupted flow of money into their hands and can
    then dole it out to those who fall in line with their ideas.
    
    This is the type of thing that so many people are getting tired of.  I
    always liked the example of withholding highway funds to any state that
    didn't enforce the 55 MPH limit.  The response should have been that we
    will no longer pay a federal highway tax on gas and keep it in the
    state.  This would have really forced the Fed show it's true colors.
    
    I think that many people have just about had it, which is really good.
    

>            <<< Note 412.54 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member" >>>
>    Here in Md, the guvnah just signed 235 new pieces of legislation. 
>    That's in 4 months since the new politiskunks have been in session.

Yup. "This troubles me." Imagine what goes through the US House and Senate...
Imagine how long it would take us to overturn 235 laws in court. By that
time, there would be 235x235 new laws to take their place.

    I have another prediction:
    
    If Congress should go very far in decentralizing power back to the
    states (i.e. restoring too much Consitutional balance), there will be 
    some sort of emergency that will be used as an excuse to centralize
    power to the federal government.  The people will be worked into a
    frenzy via the media to accept this type of "solution".
    
    Heck, this may happen anyway, since the momentum seems to be in this
    direction; too many people are crying out for less government
    intrusion in their affairs.  It will be interesting to see what is used
    in an attempt to reverse public opinion. 
    
    The OKC bombing has certainly been used to push for more federal police
    powers, some certainly clashing with the Constitution.  The FF would be
    appalled at the current "Anti-Terrorist Omnibus Bill", as well as
    alarmed, shocked, and fighting mad that anyone would promote such a
    thing.  I think they'd even be more appalled that the people would let
    the government get away with it, and even support such a thing.
    
    
    -steve                                                        

    Re: .61
    
    >How should we decide which parts?
    
    You'll have to decide that for yourself.  Although the initial part is
    a fairly straight rehash of emerging political philosophy at the time,
    so no salt should be necessary.

    Re: .65
    
    >get back to real democracy as in rule "by the people, for the people."
    
    "Get back"?  We never _had_ your "real democracy," and frankly, such a
    thing was anathema to the Founding Fathers.  If you have a "real
    democracy," you wind up with government by fad and image.  Madison
    Avenue becomes the real political power.  I'm not the least interested.
    
    >take the bottom third of your citizenry seriously.
    
    And the bottom third of the citizenry should take the process of
    government seriously.  At a minimum, they should try to participate.

    Re: .69
    
    >If Congress should go very far in decentralizing power back to the
    >states
    
    Then you wind up with the Articles of Confederation, in which you don't
    have a nation, you have something like the EEC, only everyone speaks
    the same language and has the same monetary system already.  It's been
    done, it didn't work very well.  At a minimum, the US stops being a
    world power because the federal unit has to spend most of its time
    getting enough states to cooperate on anything.  It was hard enough
    with only 13; now there are 50.

    What in your best opinion is the true function for the Federal
    Government...it seems less is better...but what is exactly less?...Does
    each state become mini countries to themselves..with total self
    governing base on what...? The Constitution, BoR....a whole new way of
    running a state?  
    
    denise

    re: .72
    
    I disagree with your conclusion.  I think you start with a wrong idea
    of what I mean by decentralization.
    
    I'm not talking about decentralizing Constitutional federal powers
    (national defence, i.e. military, being one of these).  I'm talking
    about getting the federal government to get out of the welfare, farm
    subsidy, business subsidy, public school, retirement and health care
    business (to name my main peeves).  
    
    Decentralize back to Constitutional standards; it worked before we
    began the massive centralization of power in the early 1900's. 
    Government intrusion in all aspects of our lives cannot be a good thing
    for freedoms or the economy.
    
    
    -steve                     

                       <<< Note 412.74 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

>    Decentralize back to Constitutional standards; it worked before we
>    began the massive centralization of power in the early 1900's. 

And forget the industrial revolution ever happened, right?    

We don't live in the 18th century any more. Our world is a very different 
place from the one the FFs knew. Their genius wasn't that they knew how 
government should look for all time, but that they knew that they couldn't 
possibly envision what government would need to look like 100, 200, 300, 
500 years hence - so they created an incredibly minimalist, flexible 
constitution and a basic structure to government that makes *real*, 
systematic tyranny of government against its people virtually impossible. 

    Re: .74
    
    >Decentralize back to Constitutional standards
    
    You'll need to be more explicit.  After all, everyone has their own
    idea of what the Constitution requires.
    
    As for the early 1900s, I should point out that the world has changed a
    great deal, not to mention the country.  Agriculture is no longer a
    major consumer of labor.  The population is large enough to deplete
    natural resources at a steady rate.  International trade is more common
    and more complex, and therefore so are all matters pertaining to money
    and banking.  We cannot return to Jefferson's agrarian society, and the 
    world we live in is something the Founding Fathers had never imagined. 
    So I'm reluctant to jump in and advocate that we try to run a
    new-fashioned world with old-fashioned rules.  There are bound to be
    places where things just don't fit, and it occurs to me that if you're
    being motivated by pet peeves, you might not have taken the time to
    consider where those incongruities might show up.

.71> "Get back"?  We never _had_ your "real democracy," and frankly, 
.71> such a thing was anathema to the Founding Fathers.  

it seems your FFs had an unpopular vision of democracy by today's standards.
given that they excluded women and folks who owned no land from participating.


.71> And the bottom third of the citizenry should take the process of
.71> government seriously.  

in indirect democracies, such as yours, where you can express your vote 
so rarerly, you'd think that going to the ballot box was special. yet, the
low rate of participation (particularly by the poor, as i've read) is a 
sure sign of desillusionment.

they probably would participate more if they felt they had a say. 

and not just the poor. a look in here is sufficient to get the impression
that most of you don't feel represented by your government.

a means to overcome this gap between the voters and the government is 
more direct democracy. 

.40 makes a strong case for direct democracy at the town level. direct 
democracy can work at the state and federal level too.

the french are discussing this aswell.

in the recent presidential elections in france, both leading candidates,
when confronted with the problem of voter desillusionment, proposed making 
more use of the referendum.



andreas.

    Re: .77
    
    >it seems your FFs had an unpopular vision of democracy by today's 
    >standards.
    
    If you're going to get into these discussions, you're going to have to
    understand some basic terms, or you'll wind up looking silly.  The US
    is not governed, and has never been governed, by a democracy.  We have
    a republic, in which people elect representatives to run the
    government.  A real democracy cuts out the middle man.  The Founding
    Fathers are on record as regarding democracy as "mob rule."  It's well
    documented.  And I think they were right to regard it as such.
    
    As for disillusionment, I don't think it's a function of democracy or
    otherwise.  I think it's a result of the party system, particularly our
    two party system.  At the national level, you can't run a viable
    candidate without a party (unless you're richer than God, like Perot). 
    This is true for the most part at the state level, as well.  The
    Republicans are being held in thrall by their ultraconservative wing,
    numerically small but financially important.  The Democrats are held in
    thrall by their special interest groups, such as labor.  Then you have
    the lobbies of special interest groups, such as the NRA or the AARP,
    who have enough money to sink or float their desired candidate.
    
    The Founding Fathers (and George Washington, in particular) had some
    very disdainful opinions about "factions," and they were right about
    those, too.  Unfortunately, they were also extremely naive about them.

re .78

>    or you'll wind up looking silly.  

your concern for my looks is noted with some suspicion. ;-)

...and thanks for an informative reply nonetheless.

>								  The US
>    is not governed, and has never been governed, by a democracy. We have
>    a republic, in which people elect representatives to run the government.  
>    A real democracy cuts out the middle man.  

no democratic country today has what you call "real democracy", your term 
for direct democracy. though in some countries the means of direct democracy 
are used extensively (switzerland comes to mind most notably) all western 
democracies are based on your "middle wo/man", a system of indirect democracy.

now, what do you think about introducing elements of direct democracy as a 
means to close the gap between voters and government? 

for instance, by means of referendums, have the voters approve major 
expenditures of the state and federal governments. 

the citizens will have a direct say on where the major $$$'s go!!!

using referendums in the case of major expenditures will reduce the job 
of the legislatives to primarily perparing proposals and alternatives for the 
referendums. this would significantly reduce the size of the bureaucracies. 
this will also cut down no end on debating times in the legislatives and give 
the representative more time to go about representing his/her constituency
for less costly motions.

most importantly, debating and voting on referendums will involve the citizens 
very directly. with the political discourse focused on the subject matter 
rather than on party politics and lobbying groups.

how's this for a winner!

don't you think introducing elements of direct democracy is ideal for 
overcoming the widespread desillusionment with politics? a desillusionment 
which you attribute to a stalemate in the dominant two party system.

i think .40 makes a perfect start!



andreas.

    I don't think your direct approach goes far enough.  ANY, ANY program
    that the Fed wanted to implement would have to be approved by the
    voters.
    
    This eliminates the control the Fed has over the electorate.
    

    
    Note 412.27
    
    >Pehaps we should turn this note into a list of
    >all of the government rules, regulations and mandates that have
    >taken place over the past 20-30 years.  I think people will then be able
    >to see the direction this government is taking and why there is a
    >growing unrest with government.
    
    Going back to the example of the seatbelt.
    
    o	In the early 60's they were optional.  
    o	Later they became required.
    o	Then came airbags
    o	Then came passive restraints
    o	Then came big brother telling me I have to wear mine.
    
    The order may be slightly off, but in essence we went from a $25
    option, to a $500+ requirement.  So much for freedom of choice.
    

    .81
    
    STANDING OVATION
    [clap clapp clap clap clap clap]
    

    Re: .79
    
    >for instance, by means of referendums, have the voters approve major 
    >expenditures of the state and federal governments. 
    
    The same objections as for true democracy apply -- you wind up with
    government by fad and ad power.  I don't find it appealing.

    
    
re:            <<< Note 412.71 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
    
    
>    And the bottom third of the citizenry should take the process of
>    government seriously.  At a minimum, they should try to participate.
    
    	An interesting comment from one who says she doesn't vote....
    
    
    jim

    Re: 83
    
    What do you think you have now!!  If we don't have a government that
    finds Constitutional rights that are not there and eliminate rights
    that are, then I think you're looking at it in a rather skewed light.
    
    You can see the legislation and judicial decisions being made based on
    pressure by minority factions driving an entire country.  A direct
    democracy will put this tyrany away.
    
    Yes, you may get some swings based on public opinion at the time, but
    you certainly get a better way to correct any changes that don't work.
    
    Your concern may be correct, but misdirected.
    

    Re: .84
    
    >An interesting comment from one who says she doesn't vote....
    
    Not at all.  I should vote.  (Which means I should know more about the
    issues.)  But I don't.  I fail to do a lot of things I should.
    
    
    Re: .85
    
    >If we don't have a government that finds Constitutional rights that
    >are not there and eliminate rights that are, then I think you're
    >looking at it in a rather skewed light.
    
    Since I can't find any connection between this and what I wrote in .83,
    I am forced to conclude that you're ranting.  If you want to expound on
    all of your pet peeves, fine.  Just don't pretend it has anything to do
    with what I've said.
    
    >You can see the legislation and judicial decisions being made based on
    >pressure by minority factions driving an entire country.  A direct
    >democracy will put this tyrany away.
    
    Oh, right, then the majority factions will drive the entire country.  I
    suppose you think the majority is always right.  I suppose you've never
    heard the term "tyranny of the majority."  I suppose you think the
    majority will always vote to do what is best for the country as a
    whole ("the greater good" of the Founding Fathers), regardless of how
    it might affect them.
    
    You may suppose I think you're dreaming.

    Re: 86
    
    If you can no relationship between my entry and yours, then you
    obviously didn't read mine, or yours means something different than the
    words you wrote.  To summarize, you claim that a democracy will lead to
    government by fad and ad power.  My response claims that vocal minority
    interests are shaping the way this country is run.  My contention that
    rights are re-interpreted, not through Constitutional means, but
    through popular opinion.
    
    You may not like this, but that doesn't change it.  Two current, and
    hotly debated topics, prove my point.  One being gun control, the other
    being abortion.  The Constitution protects your rights to own a gun and
    yet they Government, becaus eof popular fad, is trying to eliminate
    this right.  the other is a right to privacy to get an abortion.  Other
    than by stretching the Constitution far beyond it's words, there is no
    way to get the interpretation used.  this is another example of rule by
    fad and ad power.
    
    If you want to change the Constitution and add or subtract rights, then
    have it amended but dont' use "fad or ad power" to make changes that
    are outside of the system.
    
    Lastly, I assume you have never heard the term " tyrany of the
    minority".  What you hav now is by far worse than any tyrany by the
    majority.  I tend to think that the collective judgement and wisdom of
    the majority always provides the best solutions over time.  Any
    particular point on the continuum may not look like it, but over time
    it does support the concept.
    
    Hope this clarifies my response for you.  Also, I never rant.
    

               - The Conservative Commentary -
__________________________________________________________________
A weekly commentary by the Editor of the Washington Weekly.

Wednesday, May 10, 1995.
__________________________________________________________________



     JUST WHAT KIND OF SOCIETY DOES CLINTON HAVE IN MIND?

    The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to prevent the  government
from  using  the  military  against  its  own  citizens.  Such  a
limitation is normally what separates a police state from a  free
society.  But under Bill Clinton, this line is beginning to blur.

    Already as Governor  in  Arkansas,  Clinton  used  the  State
Police  against  political opponents. In the White House, Clinton
used the FBI and IRS as political instruments in  the  Travelgate
affair.  In  Waco, Texas, he called in tanks from the military (a
potential violation  of  Posse  Comitatus  that  has  never  been
investigated for lack of Congressional oversight.)

    Perhaps next time there is a Waco, Clinton would like to call
in bombers with napalm?

   Considering this background and the  following  components  of
Clinton's legislative agenda:

1. step-by-step disarmament of the people through a steady stream
   of gun control laws;
2. enabling the use of U.S. military against the people;
3. drastic expansion of federal police force;
4. executive order to allow physical searches without a warrant;
5. broadened authority for wiretapping;
6. unilateral presidential authority to declare organizations as
   terrorist and strip them of their Constitutional rights;
7. secret Presidential Decision Directives on national security;

and   considering   Hillary's   penchant   for    totalitarianism
(government   control  of  health  care,  government  control  of
children) one might justifiably ask the question, just what  kind
of society do they have in mind?


__________________________________________________________________

Send your comments to [email protected]
They will be posted in this space:


__________________________________________________________________

For sponsorship information, send an email to [email protected].

Copyright (c) 1995 Informatics Resource

    Re: 88
    
    One of the best examples of how the Constitution has been held hostage
    by the "tyrany of the minority" that I have seen lately.
    

    Re: .87
    
    >If you can no relationship between my entry and yours
    
    False premise.  What I said, was that I saw no relationship between
    your first paragraph (you know, the part I quoted) and my note.
    
    
    >yet they Government, becaus eof popular fad, is trying to eliminate
    >this right.
    
    I don't consider support of gun control a fad, really.
    
    But you support my point.  You are unhappy with the results of
    "popular" opinion on government, yet you get upset when I object to
    having even more.  How consistent is that?
    
    >If you want to change the Constitution and add or subtract rights, then
    >have it amended but dont' use "fad or ad power" to make changes that
    >are outside of the system.
    
    False premise, if you're using "you" in the specific sense.  If you're
    using it in the general sense, then how is this any different than what
    I've said?
    
    >What you hav now is by far worse than any tyrany by the majority.
    
    No, I'd have to say that tyranny is bad, regardless of who's doing it.
    
    >I tend to think that the collective judgement and wisdom of the
    >majority always provides the best solutions over time. 
    
    I don't.  I don't even think that the collective judgement and wisdom
    of the populace (not just the majority) always provides the best
    solutions over time.  Because it's not just a matter of judgement and
    wisdom.  It's a matter of understanding the issue and understanding the
    full consequences of any action.  Most people don't fully understand
    the implications of, say, altering the prime interest rate.  And that's
    just a very small matter of government policy.

    Re: 90
    
    My concern or comment about public opinion affecting government policy,
    particularly gun control, supports my contention.  It seems that we are
    looking at this from opposite sides but, seem to have the same
    conclusion, almost.
    
    I certainly do not think that popular opinion should shape policy, but
    we can amend the Constitution if enough people agree.  that is why I
    believe we will always reflect majority opinion, but it should not be a
    mere whim to implent the changes.
    
    What we can not do is to allow minority interests to re-interpret the
    constitution because very few people agree.
    

    Re: .91
    
    >I certainly do not think that popular opinion should shape policy
    
    Well, that's precisely what happens in a democracy.  
    
    >What we can not do is to allow minority interests to re-interpret the
    >constitution because very few people agree.
    
    They don't.  The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.  And given
    the number of justices appointed by Reagan and Bush, one would have a
    hard time arguing that the Supreme Court is being held hostage by those
    minority groups of whom you disapprove.  (I think it quite possible
    that minority groups, a.k.a. factions, of whom you approve wield a
    great deal of influence over the court.)

    Re: 92
    
    AS you can see very easily, most of the special interest legislation
    never gets to the Supreme Court.  It also takes forever to get these
    laws reviewed and then, even if the law is overturned; i.e., the Texas
    gun case, the government just comes back with a re-write of the law
    that has to wind it's way through the courts.
    
    This is what I mean by the tyrany of the minority.  I do; however,
    agree that as we are able to construct a more responsible Supreme
    Court, we will be able to minimize some of the abuses.
    

    Re: .93
    
    >I do; however, agree that as we are able to construct a more
    >responsible Supreme Court, we will be able to minimize some of the 
    >abuses.
    
    No, you do not agree, because I never said that.

    Re: 94
    
    I agreed that the Supreme Court may be taking on a more conservative
    appearance.  I don't necessarily agree that it is conservative.
    

    .93
    
    You've made a mistake.  You don't mean a responsible Supreme Court, you
    mean a responsive one.  A truly responsible one would adjudicate cases
    strictly on the basis of the Constitution.  As in Roe V. Wade and Brown
    v. Board of Education.  What most people on both sides of the political
    road want these days is a Supreme Court that will base judgments on the
    beliefs of the people, without regard to whether those beliefs abide by
    the Constitution.

    Re: 96
    
    No, I do mean a responsible one.  the Roe v Wade decision is a perfect
    example of exactly what I mean.  Please ideintify, and I know tha this
    has gone around before, how the Supreme Court could find the basis in
    the Constitution that they used.  As far as I have been able to
    understand with all of the things I have read, the court really had to
    strectch to accomodate a political decision, not a Constitutional one.
    
    I believe it would be best if the Supreme Court really used a strict
    interpretation of the Constitution and if the citizens want to change
    it then they amend the Constitution, we do not allow judges to
    manipulate the Constitution to meet a political agenda.
    
    So, once again, I do not believe the court is conservative, but does
    take a less liberal interpretation of the Constitution.
    

>    I believe it would be best if the Supreme Court really used a strict
>    interpretation of the Constitution and if the citizens want to change
>    it then they amend the Constitution

So, we've got a supreme court decision (Roe v Wade) which you feel is
an inappropriate interpretation of the constitution, a constitution which
clearly grants no rights to the unborn, and you'd like, instead, for the
decision to be reversed and a constitutional ammendment written and ratified
which specifically allows for abortion - is that about the size of it, Al?

And, pardon me for not thanking you earlier for this bit of humor -

.87> Also, I never rant.
    

I'm also totally opposed to what would have happened to this response if I
hadn't posted this.

    	Well, Jack, that was a rahter totalitarian thing to do!  :^)

My democratic duty, Joe.

:^)

    
    So Jack...could we say that you support Snarf Control?
    
    

No control freak, I.

If the Constitution grants no rights to the unborn, then it likewise
grants no rights to visitors from abroad.

By that logic, one could sit with impunity and a rifle in the international
terminal at Logan Airport, shooting anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen.

/john

And, you might astutely note, that doesn't change anything that I said.

    Re: 98
    
    Your response is a perfect example of my position.  The Supreme Court,
    particularly in the last few decades, have stretched the Constitution
    to cover actions not specified.  You claim that the Constitution offers
    no rights to the unborn, so the abortion decision is OK and there
    should be no need for a Constitutional amendment to specifically cover
    this area.
    
    On the surface you can should be able to see that your line of
    reasoning is in error.  Using your interpretation there should never
    have been a need for an anti-slavery amendment nor an amendment giving
    the vote to women.  these were done in order to clearly include
    Constitutional protections for an area that was apparent but not
    spelled out.
    
    If you take the precedent formed by Roe v Wade and the right to privacy
    then, by inference, most laws are un-Constitutional.  Using Roe v Wade
    as a springboard laws governing drug use, gambling, prostitution,
    drinking age, etc would fall into the "privacy" area.  You may agree
    with this expansive interpretation of the Constitution, but it would
    lead to societal chaos.
    
    If the citizens want to provide a Constitutional protection then why
    not make it specific?  do you think that it would not be approved?
    
    Sorry but your answer that "what is, is" simply is poor logic.
    

    Re: .97
    
    >I believe it would be best if the Supreme Court really used a strict
    >interpretation of the Constitution
    
    Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist.  Then he became
    president.  Then he handled the Louisiana Purchase -- a transaction not
    within the boundaries of the Constitution.  Guess we'd better return
    all that land.

>    Using your interpretation there should never
>    have been a need for an anti-slavery amendment nor an amendment giving
>    the vote to women.  these were done in order to clearly include
>    Constitutional protections for an area that was apparent but not
>    spelled out.

Unless I am sorely mistaken, the constitution as written specifically
did NOT grant the vote to women, hence the amendment was required. Slavery
was a fact at the time of its writing, hence the need for an amendment
to end it. Neither of these are privacy issues, in any event. Abortion
is.
    
>    If you take the precedent formed by Roe v Wade and the right to privacy
>    then, by inference, most laws are un-Constitutional.  Using Roe v Wade
>    as a springboard laws governing drug use, gambling, prostitution,
>    drinking age, etc would fall into the "privacy" area.  You may agree
>    with this expansive interpretation of the Constitution, but it would
>    lead to societal chaos.

Pardon me? All of the things you mention are controlled by state and local
rather than federal laws (i.e. not the constitution) in case you hadn't
noticed. They are not constitutionally controllable, and societal chaos
is not apparent, even though they are more or less legal depending on
the locality. Which is as it should be.
    
>    If the citizens want to provide a Constitutional protection then why
>    not make it specific?  do you think that it would not be approved?

If you think abortion should be constitutionally forbidden, then why not
make a specific amendment so ruling? Do you think it would not be approved?
    
You see, Al, I don't "like" or Want" abortion any more that I "like" or
"want" prostitution or drug use, but I like even less a bunch of restrictive
laws which prevent people from making their own choices.

        <<< Note 412.109 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Unless I am sorely mistaken, the constitution as written specifically
>did NOT grant the vote to women, hence the amendment was required.

	Nit. The Constitution was silent on the matter. Therefore it was 
	constitutional for women to vote or not be permitted to vote. Each
	State (or Territory) could decide for itself. The 19th Amendment
	prohibitted the practice of not allowing women to vote. 

> Slavery
>was a fact at the time of its writing, hence the need for an amendment
>to end it. 

	The same, actually could be said for slavery. Each jurisdiction could
	have outlawed the practice.

>Neither of these are privacy issues, in any event. Abortion
>is.
 
	There is some similarity though. In both the case of women's suffrage
	and slavery there was no constitutional basis for declaring those 
	affected as "legal" citizens (persons under the law). The same can
	be said concerning the Roe v. Wade decision even though this is not
	the argument that was put forth by the Justices. Frankly, I think
	the "non-person" argument to be more compelling.

Jim

    Re: .110
    
    >Each State (or Territory) could decide for itself.
    
    So it would be up for each state to decide who could participate in the
    national government?  Logically, it's not their province.
    
    >The same, actually could be said for slavery.
    
    Not entirely.  The three-fifths compromise needed to be undone.

    re: .109
    
    Then let the states decide if abortion will be legal within their
    boundaries.  It simply is not a constitutional issue one way or the
    other, IMO, no matter how far you stretch the privacy issue.
    
    
    -steve

           <<< Note 412.111 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    So it would be up for each state to decide who could participate in the
>    national government?  Logically, it's not their province.
 
	It was at the time in question. Each State determined the
	requirements that a potential voter had to meet. Even in recent
	times, Poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. were quite legal.

>    Not entirely.  The three-fifths compromise needed to be undone.

	Read Article 1 Section 2 more carefully. All a State would need
	to do is declare all persons to be "free" and no reversal of the
	the three-fifths rule would be required.

Jim

                      <<< Note 412.112 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

>    Then let the states decide if abortion will be legal within their
>    boundaries.  It simply is not a constitutional issue one way or the
>    other, IMO, no matter how far you stretch the privacy issue.
 
	Well it depends. If the Court determines that an unborn fetus
	is not a "person" (logical, legally, since a birth certificate 
	is required to "recognize" a "person") then they can address 
	the issue of privacy of the mother under the provisions of the
	9th Amendment.

Jim

    
    re: .114
    
    >If the Court determines that an unborn fetus is not a "person"
    
    if the "Court" determines????
    

Whose place is it to determine that, Andy?

    Reg 412.114
    
    Jim,
    
    A birth certificate is not needed to be recognized as a "person".  The
    IRS for tax perposes(sp) does not need to see a social security # for
    my children in order for them to be recognized as my dependants on my
    Income tax forms.  In order to get a Social Security # you need a birth
    certificate.  The IRS recognized my children as dependants based on 
    a photo static copy of our Family Bible where there birth are recorded!
    
    Paul

Let's not quibble - "proof of birth" of some form. Do you suppose
the IRS would be happy with a xerox copy of a bunch of falsified
names, or names of children expected but not born?

                   <<< Note 412.117 by CSC32::P_YOUNGMEYER >>>

>    A birth certificate is not needed to be recognized as a "person".  The
>    IRS for tax perposes(sp) does not need to see a social security # for
>    my children in order for them to be recognized as my dependants on my
>    Income tax forms.

	You may want to talk to talk to your accountant. I believe the
	law changed in the last couple of years. Over a certain age (I
	think it's 5) a SSN is required for dependants. You'll also need
	it to get a job (you'll need the birth certificate to prove that
	you are a citizen as well).

	Even so, your entry in the Bible lists a live birth, it does not
	list (I assume) conception.

Jim	

    >Whose place is it to determine that
    
    The pregnant one!
    
    ...Tom

Well, that's fine too, I suppose. It appears that somehow there's
an expectation that the determination should be up to some other
party(s), so I was curious as to whom that might be.

    Re: .113
    
    >>Logically, it's not their province.
    >
    >It was at the time in question.
    
    Time has nothing to do with it.  It wasn't logical then, it wouldn't be
    logical now.

           <<< Note 412.122 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Time has nothing to do with it.  It wasn't logical then, it wouldn't be
>    logical now.

	The timing certainly DOES have a lot to with it. Remember, when
	the Constitution was written, the States had far more power than
	they do today. In fact, it can be argued that the State's have never
	actually relinquished that power from a constitutional standpoint.

	But, your origianl point that the 13th and 19th Amendments were
	"neccessary" was the issue I was debating. That assertion is
	incorrect. They were a uniform means of accomplishing the task,
	but the task could have been performed by the States on their
	own.

Jim

    Re: .123
    
    >The timing certainly DOES have a lot to with it.
    
    Just to make the point absolutely, painfully clear:  timing has
    something to do with the legality of it, but timing has NOTHING
    WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE LOGIC OF IT.
    
    Got it yet?

           <<< Note 412.124 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Just to make the point absolutely, painfully clear:

	The point that your assertion that the 13 and 19th Amendments
	were "neccessary" IS painfully clear. You're incorrect.

Jim

    Re: .125
    
    >>    Just to make the point absolutely, painfully clear:
    >
    >The point that your assertion that the 13 and 19th Amendments
    >were "neccessary" IS painfully clear.
    
    That was not the point referenced in .124.  The point referenced in
    .124 is:  "Logically, it's not their province."  That is, who
    participates in the national government is the logical province of the
    nation, not the state.
    
    I'm surprised you weren't able to figure that out.

           <<< Note 412.126 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    I'm surprised you weren't able to figure that out.

Chelsea, 
	If you recall before you dragged us into one of your classic diversions
	that my initial comment was clearly marked as a nit on the legal
	aspect of your claim. There was no need or requirement for either
	Amendment from a Constitutional aspect. AS to the issue of women's
	suffrage, women were voting in this country in the 1870's. AS for
	slavery, just about half the States had banned the practice prior
	to 1840.

	Now on a strictly constitutional basis it would have been right
	and proper to defer to the States in making the decision on either
	issue. It would have been legally logical to do so. Amending the
	Constitution was simply more efficient.

Jim

    Re: .127
    
    >my initial comment was clearly marked as a nit on the legal aspect of 
    >your claim.
    
    So why'd you _quote_ and respond to the "Logically, it's not their
    province." part?
    
    >It would have been legally logical to do so.
    
    It would have been legal.  It still would not be logical.

    	"Legally logical" and "logical" are not the same.

           <<< Note 412.128 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    So why'd you _quote_ and respond to the "Logically, it's not their
>    province." part?
 
	Becase I'm foolish enough to fall for your diversions.

>    It would have been legal.  It still would not be logical.

	Perfectly logical based on the legal assumptions of the period.
	All logic starts with certain givens. The givens of the 19th
	Century may be different than the ones we use today. That does
	not make them wrong.

Jim

    <<< Note 412.130 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The givens of the 19th
>	Century may be different than the ones we use today. That does
>	not make them wrong.

    	So too the morals.