Subject:
|
Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:04:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
400 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Scott writes:
> > So what does it take to "erode your rights" then?
>
> Well almost any kind of minor legal hassle can have the appearance of
> erroding my rights -- including a bill to stop terrorist activities. The
> real test comes in time, tested in the courts, and sometimes even retested
> in the courts. Sometimes public opinion has play in these matters, and
> sometimes it does not. The real test occurs IN TIME. Bad decisions are
> sometimes made, and thankfully are often corrected later on.
It does not sound all that great when you describe it like that?
>
> But the real source of my rights is not the government nor a piece of paper,
> but rather they exist as a set of mere ideas that we generally call "human
> rights." The fact that such rights are at least in part enumerated in my
> country's liberty documents is not a stop to me in any way -- if anything I
> assume that such enumeration acts as a first barrier to protect my rights.
> If that doesn't work there are other remedies -- of course, those remedies
> are often more difficult to achieve. But if you think I am sorry to have
> things like Title 42, Sect. 1983 at my disposal, you'd be wrong. See:
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.html
>
> That section provides a solution in equity for a redress of grievances more
> easily sustained at common law. That not actually subtle difference bothers
> me a little, but it's a solution nonetheless.
>
> Where my government has people by the short hairs is in the ignorance of the
> many that might otherwise oppose the madness of the few who manage to
> control our lives. If I wanted to change conditions in the U.S. for the
> better without regard to better educating the many, I would look to
> reforming our means of exchange (and by reform, I really mean just going
> back to what was obviously originally intended in Artcle I, sect. 10 of the
> U.S. Constitution). I think that if you liberate people by placing REAL
> wealth in their pockets, most of the rest follows of its own. When people
> have nothing of substance they think nothing of taking from others, be it
> actual property or rights -- when they have something to protect, they think
> long and hard about whimsically changing things to expedite some short term
> goal.
I agree with some of what you say, but at times I think we get too hung up
on property rights.
>
> > So, am I the only "troll"?
>
> No, I think we all troll a little bit occasionally. Because I sometimes
> agree with your views I was hoping to elevate your own mode of expression to
> something a little more benign. I say let your ideas be strong, and your
> rhetoric a little less personal. I am telling you that your good ideas are
> being watered down by some of your other behavior, and that's a pity because
> you do have good things to contribute.
Thanks again for your comments. I think we *all* have good things to contribute.
Scott A
>
> -- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
43 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
