December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Minor Language Note
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >>> While it was not Tim's intention to make Jim look like a criminal, >>> the use of a defendent's full name is often used to connote >>> criminality. >>> >>> Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, John Wayne Gacy, Richard >>> Milhous Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton... there are many >>> examples. > >George Washington Carver, James Fennimore Cooper, Richard Dean >Anderson, Clare Booth Luce, Robert Anton Wilson, Francis Scott Key,..... We don't usually think of these people as defendants. >(Sometimes people have three names, sometimes two names, popularly >used. Criminality has little to do with it. For example, Richard >Speck, Charles Manson, John Walker, Aldrich Ames, Ted Kaczynski, >Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols. Most of them presumably have middle >names.) I did not say that the use of middle names was required for defendants. >Oh, and as to divining what Tim's "intention" was, this mindreading >and psychoanalysis shtick is getting old. My opening sentence was intended to be friendly. It was supposed make clear that it was not suggested that you thought Jim Bell was a criminal. Certainly that was obvious, but a little redundancy never hurts. It looks like the meaning didn't convey properly, so I'm sorry if I seemed to be psychoanalyzing you. It's generally considered courteous to call people by the name they wish to be called. Jim Bell seems to go by the name "Jim Bell". (This would not hold if somebody makes an inappropriate request such as asking to be addressed as "James Dalton Bell, Defender of the Faith, God of Vengeance, and Lord of the Universe.") Back to the original point, I believe that it's hard to find instances in which two-named people are involuntarily converted to three-named people when they are not charged with a crime. Lee Oswald became "Lee Harvey Oswald" after the Kennedy Assassination, for example. I've also noticed that Wardens have a marked tendency to refer to inmates on death row by their first name, even when speaking publicly. As in, "Don's death was very upsetting as it was obviously very painful." (Paraphrased from a real example.) I believe the wardens are expressing a few things with this name choice. One is that they have complete power over the inmate. Teachers call children by their first names, and it seems to me that there is an element of that here. (Admittedly, this is a troubling image.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGpi1JaWtjSmRH/5AQEsLwf9H4ZmvsVVkQgh9WU/HOUZYdet7+9p9nBf frvYBTgRNoOPiM0pl7Yusl/GhAK6nhCpEb0dCUaWjFLW889I5CyvrbqkzWoA6tj0 k5ULieQs390JEzGAn1LEkvzUCjlEBn5WFgpzJCFYzWpAMaQPT6qcczRIXqoCPG7l R822+EBuL9eikWruy+8V6Bt45mQyB/aHemhmIa/V4YKCn7mc8FmfZ/qQHknaPdFP wJz3cXmw1im4Br/0UkLv9bD2CfZCqcq74VpbujMvUFnsAOmbrWJVqlSV+Gs1MDXf Zli7VCarhzAU9j4sPU9gbTBYsuApRYd8IrJtvOfQcDDMw0dEd9/tjA== =Az6E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Mad as Hell
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, >spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern >version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown >with the federal government. This sounds interesting! This is what I had in mind, in that other thread about "What Will Revolution Look Like" >[...]A merchandise ine with caps, t-shirts with the blazing >l "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. However, this is unfortunate. Trinkets like these may bring in useful and needed funds, but they take away from the seriousness of the effort, from the respect the cause deserves. They make the wearers look like weenies playing a child's game, rather than serious individuals in their rights minds with the concentration and commitment to do important work for the purpose at hand. (In a silly mood, I could see a gathering of such supporters in a large, crowded courtroom, all wearing T-shirts saying, "It's *ShowTime* !!!" ) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Tim May's offensive racism (was: about RC4)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous of EFGA wrote: >This illustrates what a liability the poster has become to the cypherpunks. >The group is becoming just another militia front, identified with racism >and white supremacy, applauding violent murder of government agents, >one step from applauding the Oklahoma killings. Its original purpose >all but forgotten, the list has died, poisoned by the hatred flowing from >its leader. Wait a minute, that list is way too short. This list is far more diversely mean-spirited, and venomously hilarious, than that. It offers a lot more hatred and humor than you give credit for, or maybe can enjoy. All praise to Tim, beloved mad as hell assassin, he's one of the sharpest killer humorists-satirists here, call's the jokes and the buffoons as he sees them, insults hot shot leaders and fawning beggars indiscriminately. Hate and love on both Glocks. Check the anarchives: Tim's no leader, says it often, proves it more so by destroying anyone who pretends to be, scares off anyone who tries to suck up to him for protection, and promises to kill (filter) the bloodsuckers if they send PGPed tips. Kill them with ridicule for not thinking for themselves, paying their own way, lapping others' blood and brains. If that doesn't work he tells a public joke about their overtures. Then the anon shits fly. Is he not these very days razzing the big iron folks, taunting the tank in Tienamen Square? We'll yet see some anon turds for this, too, maybe yours is one. Some have weird sense of playfulness, cut your throat to see you flop. Call you a leader, a bullseye target. Hettinga, helluva beloved Bob, another bleeding edge satirist, self-flagellator for philo-fun and E$, this is adose of clap also for your exemplary rant of a schtick of a buffoonery of a calling them as you deadeyedly see them miraging the desert of Maine.

1 0

Re: CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Mikhael Frieden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:01 PM 11/12/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. On the legal side this narrowing has a modest merit in that the government has established (rightly or wrongly) the power to control publishers. It is difficult to find a reference to a website that does not make a reference to publishing. Thus it falls under a reasonable interpretation of existing law and precident (and distinguished from, the internet is a telephone as the frozen brains would have it.) The critical problem is obvious, harmful to minors. Tooth decay is harmful to minors, all product advertising that can be construed as increasing the incidence of tooth decay is harmful to children. It also brings up the German "I can trump your arguement and invent a new one" excuse for banning Zundelsite, that it was "ethically disorienting to children." If one presumes ethical disorientation is a harm then one has to hold all forms of education that promote independent thinking are harmful to children. It would therefore make huge numbers of academic sites criminal including the Gutenberg Project for carrying materials that resulted in the prosecution of Socrates for essentially the same crime. It is not a viable concept without a definition of harm to children. Given current events, any mention of air bags is not merely harmful to children but lethal to children. -=-=- I have contacted the owner with a problem. It still sends to me but does not receive. Until the mailing list problem is corrected I will try to continue participation this way. Let me know if you have a problem with this method.

1 0

Re: SWAT: A Growth Industry
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dan Veeneman wrote: > US News & World Report 11/17/97 > Everyone gets into the terrorism game > BY DAVID E. KAPLAN > >Congress...allocated more than a billion dollars in support ... > Even the toughest critics acknowledge that many of the new programs are > needed. For example, they agree that the training of local emergency > workers to deal with a chemical or biological attack is long overdue. Are these guys with the same government that ignores the fact that the development of antibiotic-resistant *natural* diseases due to the greed of the medical and pharmaceutical industries may well lead to more death and disaster than any terrorist threat?

1 0

(Fwd) Victory For Microbroadcasting!!!!
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:45:16 -0800 (PST) From: gregruggiero(a)earthlink.net (Greg Ruggiero) Subject: Victory For Microbroadcasting!!!! Friends, This should raise the hopes of all microbroadcasters. We, who oppose the barriers against free communications and the corporate takeover of our media institutions, need to do all we can to ensure that the airwaves really become free. Support your local alternative media. Howard Rosenfeld ---------------------------------------------- ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FREE RADIO BERKELEY & MICROPOWER BROADCASTING At 7 PM on Thursday, [ed: correction - Wednesday] November 12 attorneys for Stephen Dunifer & Free Radio Berkeley received a 14 page decision via fax from Federal District Court Judge Claudia Wilken announcing her ruling in favor of Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Her ruling denies the FCC's motion for summary judgement for a permanent injunction, states that she has jurisdiction in this case and that the FCC's regulatory structure is unconstitutional. Further, she orders the FCC to submit within 14 days a brief on the constitutional issues raised. Essentially Judge Claudia Wilken affirms all the merits and arguments raised by the defense attorneys for Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Stay tuned for further details. The full text of the decision will be posted ASAP. A victory party will take place on Saturday evening, November 15 in Berkeley. Place to be announced as soon as one is secured. Everyone is invited. Stephen Dunifer Free Radio Berkeley ******************************************************************* NEW YORK Media for Change <<< FREE MEDIA >>> Changing the Media ALLIANCE listserve: nyfreemedia(a)tao.ca voicemail: (212) 969-TOFM website: http://artcon.rutgers.edu/papertiger/nyfma ******************************************************************* =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://ross.adnetsol.com Voice: (408) 259-2795

3 3

Think Locally...Act Globally / Re: FTC, Canada, Mexico officials launch "health claim surf day"
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > ****************************************** > > FTC Launches North American Health Claim Surf Day > > ****************************************** > > by Michael Evers ... > > The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), its federal and state law > > enforcement partners, and public health and consumer protection > > agencies from Mexico and Canada are sending you (and hundreds of other > > Internet advertisers) this message based upon a review of the promotion > > you disseminated through the Internet. How about if you are selling something on your web site and giving pointers to information/advertisements located on a foreign website? Let me guess...hhmmm...disabled grandmothers who are selling their home-grown chamoemille tea will have their homes confiscated, and corporations with expensive lawyers will be approved for an exemption on some flimsy grounds. Anybody know of any Mexican laws I can break by putting something illegal there, but legal in Canada, on my web site? Any CypherSpics who would like to put up a "Canadian Hate" page that I could link to? CyhperCanuck

1 0

Re: Mad as Hell (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:02:38 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: Mad as Hell > Tim May wrote: > > >Colorado state Senator Charles Duke, also in the studio audience, > >spoke about the 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, a modern > >version of Magna Carta designed to force a constitutional showdown > >with the federal government. > > This sounds interesting! This is what I had in mind, in that other thread > about "What Will Revolution Look Like" > > >[...]A merchandise ine with caps, t-shirts with the blazing > >l "Mad As Hell" logo is also planned. > > However, this is unfortunate. Trinkets like these may bring in useful and > needed funds, but they take away from the seriousness of the effort, from > the respect the cause deserves. They make the wearers look like weenies > playing a child's game, rather than serious individuals in their rights > minds with the concentration and commitment to do important work for the > purpose at hand. > > (In a silly mood, I could see a gathering of such supporters in a large, > crowded courtroom, all wearing T-shirts saying, "It's *ShowTime* !!!" ) A reasonable motto should be something like: 10th? I'm all for a political faction, they really don't have to be as organized as the Big Two & Little Third would like you to believe. Perhaps the concepts of multiple political parties with their own popularist views has become truly effective because of the impact of technology in particularly on concept expression, and communications. What needs to happen is a small group of suitably inspired whiz kids need to get together and form a complete plan for creating legal cases to decide the respective aspects of the 10th. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In some manner the question of whether the first sentence is an implicit limitation of *all* laws and regulations at the federal level needs to be tested. In other words, each and every law *must* trace its existance to a specific set of sentences in the Constitution. If it could be found to be so then each and every law and regulation at the federal would have to pass constitutional review at every stage of its existance within the federal government. Then a case needs to found of some situation say the founding of a church based on smoking marijuana was a illegal entity under the 1st where it is found that such organizations were illegal (rather trivial I suspect). At this point the wording of the 1st becomes *much* more specific. ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Under this light it becomes glaringly clear that not only is Congress not allowed to even discuss legislation respecting claims of religion. Per the 10th that would fall to the individual states to resolve under their individual constitutions. This would force many of the major social issues onto a regional basis where they could be dealt with in a plurality of ways. Issues regarding infringement of private ownership of weapons becomes glaringly clear in that light. It simply isn't a federal issue. Per the 10th it must be dealt with at the state level. Other issues such as no searches except under warrant issued with probable causes automaticaly prohibits various sorts of searches including samples of body tissue. The issue of the use of federal military troops for any sorts of operations except those respecting the operations of the defence of the US would be clearly decided. Such silliness as the Supreme Court finding that teachers have the Constitutional right to search kids because of supposed criminal wrong doing is clearly shown for what it is, an violation of an individuals civil rights. Warrants can only be issues on probably cause. Under these sorts of conditions the various consensual crimes our government now routinely practices would end. This is vary scary to the status quo crowd. And here lies the rub, the initial 10th test cast must be irrefusable concerning the 10th. The question then becomes, "What is the issue?". What law or aspect thereof is found so compelling that the Supreme Court *must* accept the case for ruling *and* must find in favor of Constitutional review. For maximum impact somebodies life must hang in the balance in such a manner that some fundamental question of legal lineage is brought forth. This reduces the issue to its most fundamental, "Is the right of the state more important than the life of the individual?" Why some lawyer has not used this basic question in the numerous murder trials is truly amazing. If he wins a legal precidence is set. If he looses and gets to appeal. Then walk that appeals train right up to the fundamental question of the 10th. Forcing the Supreme Court to either reject, stating clearly their answer in favor of the majority, or else to review and find that laws must pass Constitutional muster. Either way the question gets answered. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

CDA: The Sequel -- introduced in the U.S. Senate
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Just when you thought the Internet was safe from government >censorship, Sen. Dan Coats has introduced a sequel to the >notorious Communications Decency Act. Oh joy. >The bill punishes commercial distributors of material >that's "harmful to minors" with six months in jail and a >$50,000 fine. Unlike the original CDA, it applies only to >web sites -- not to chatrooms, newsgroups, or email. ^^^^^^^^^ What defines a "web site?" "The World Wide Web" originally meant "material accessible using the HyperText Transfer Protocol." The media and Klintonkov distorted the term into something else, but that's what the term still means. USENET newsgroups do not become "Internet chat groups" just because the clueless sheeple start calling them that. Of course this is how the government thinks. If I make a posting to USENET did I post the material on a "web site?" If I make the material accessible via ftp is it posted on a "web site?" What if it's available using FSP? How about IRC? What about a Bob's Proprietary Pornography Transfer Protocol? How are they going to track this? What happens when I post this material on an Eternity server outside of the U.S.? What if I just keep posting my porn through the remailer network? What if the porn site is in Amsterdam? What if I just get tired of the totalitarians and double-blind the entire process using the remailer network and while I'm at it I accept anonymous payment? What if I bring my porn into a public computer lab and upload it somewhere without any identification or with a psuedonym? Is the P.Q.R.T. (Pornography Quick Response Team) going to bust through the door before I've done this, which takes all of about 30 seconds? What happens when people start posting such porn to sci.chem? What about sci.crypt or alt.christnet? What about misc.legal? comp.org.eff.talk? news.groups? >Like the original CDA, it's certain to be controversial. >Sen. Coats (R-Indiana), chief GOP sponsor of the original >CDA, said his bill takes into account the Supreme Court's >unanimous vote in June that struck down his first try. "I >have studied the opinion of the Court and come before my >colleagues today to introduce legislation that reflects the >parameters laid out by the Court's opinion," he said on the >Senate floor. > (ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c105/s1482.is.txt) Is this bill available on the "World Wide Web?" I would argue that reading this bill is "harmful to minors" because it completely ignores the Constitution of the United States. Further, it encourages people to lie, cheat, violate oaths of office, and generally abuse power. Senator Coats, what an example for America's youth! >Coats' brainchild is strikingly similar to (and in fact not >as broad as) an ill-fated version of the first CDA that >Rep. Rick White (R-Wash.) and the Center for Democracy and >Technology embraced as a "compromise" in December 1995. >Like Coats' bill, the White-CDT measure restricted material >that was "harmful to minors." > (http://www.epic.org/cda/hyde_letter.html) >A Coats staffer said the measure requires adult >pornographers to place images behind a firewall. "If you're >involved in the commercial distribution of material that's >harmful to minors, you have to take the bad stuff and put >it on the other side of a credit card or PIN number," David >Crane said. What happens when they say "this material must be put behind a firewall?" Do I comply with the letter of the law if I firewall some random port like 49554? What if I firewall everything except port 80? What if I use a dedicated box as a network router and firewall? These things are all "firewalls." Who determines what is a "valid firewall?" Microsoft? A Coats staffer? A credit card company? What happens when these credit card numbers are sent all over the network in the clear? As it stands now you usually send a credit card number when you want to buy something. What they want here is for everybody to go send credit card numbers all over the net just to view free previews and get to text-based information. And, of course, since we have to protect society from the Four Horsemen, these credit card numbers will likely be sent in the clear or using encryption which can be cracked by a college student running a distributed cracker at idle priority on each of the several hundred machines in a lab. And getting even *one* credit card number is worth a lot. What prevents me from setting up a bogus site which asks for credit card numbers to view some nudie pictures I pulled off USENET or other sites and just storing the credit card numbers? How many of these people access just one porn site so it would be that easy to track? How can anybody prove that's what I did? Once handing credit card numbers out is as second nature as SSNs, all bets are off. And what happens when Little Johnny goes and gets Daddy's credit card and uses the number as ID? If they aren't charging, this probably won't be showing up on an invoice. And Little Johnny has plausible deniability anyway. What about stolen credit card numbers? Who determines what is "material harmful to minors?" Coats? The Supreme Court? Psychologists? Scientologists? Klitonkov? The United Nations? My hamster? Duncan McLeod of the Clan McLeod? Who? Well, I guess this outlaws any meaningful political discussions, discussions of abortions, any meaningful social discussions, any meaningful discussions about sex or romance, any discussions about the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, any discussions of firearms, any discussions of hand-to-hand combat, any discussions of self defense, any discussions of guerilla warfare, any discussions of pyrotechnics, any discussions about chemistry, lists like BUGTRAQ where exploits are posted, et cetera ad nauseum. All of those things might be considered "harmful to minors." Damn the Constitution and freedom! If it saves the life of one innocent yet incredibly stupid child then just forget about that pesky freedom thing. After all, that's only the domain of "far right-wing nazi gun nuts and radicals," right? >But the bill applies to more than just visual pornography. >Its definition of material that could hurt minors includes >any offensive sexual "communication" or "writing" without >redeeming value. It applies to text-only web pages -- or >bookstores that place sample chapters on the web. Yeah! Go Senate! Go ahead and ban any digital copies of books like 1984 (oh the irony!), digital versions of the Christian Bible, the Torah, et cetera ad nauseum. >Since it covers anyone who "through the World Wide Web is >engaged in the business of the commercial distribution of >material that is harmful to minors," it could apply to >Internet providers and online services as well. How are they going to enforce this one? Mandate that sites only serve "government certified safe" or "independantly certified safe" sites? Turn off all phone and network access, jam all radio and sattelite communications, and legislate that anybody caught with a laser capable of communications or floppy disks with files on them which might contain stegoed data will be summarily executed? >The FCC and the Department of Justice would be required to >publish on their web sites "such information as is >necessary to inform the public of the meaning of the term >`material that is harmful to minors.'" Solveig Singleton, a >lawyer at the Cato Institute, says: "The Supreme Court >struggled for years to come up with a national defintion of >obscenity. They failed. Harmful to minors is >obscenity-lite. The FCC and Department of Justice won't >have any luck coming up with a definition of >obscenity-lite." >Not a problem, predicts former porn-prosecutor Bruce >Taylor, now the head of the National Law Center for >Children and Families. "This bill will ensure that the >hardcore pornographers don't get off the hook," he says. "This bill will ensure that our freedoms are further eroded." >Next step for Coats is to attract co-sponsors and to forward >his bill to the Senate Commerce committee. Some judges >criticized Congress for holding no hearings on the original >CDA; Coats isn't going to make that mistake again. "There >will be a concerted effort to build a substantial >legislative history," says David Crane. >This bill won't be the end of Congressional interest in >cyberporn. "You'll probably see other legislation come >forward. Introducing this is not abandoning our other >concerns," Crane says. >-Declan My fellow Cypherpunks, what we have here is best explained by an analogy like this: The government decides that the youth of America is corrupting themselves and harming their health by drinking soft drinks. The Congress introduces legislation to outlaw softdrinks. Everyone except the National Law Center for Fruit and Vegetables and some other far flung totalitarians think that this legislation is rediculous and an unreasonable restriction of rights. It passes anyway. It goes to the Supreme Court and the Court shoots it down. Two years later Congress again tries to outlaw soft drinks. Since outlawing of soft drinks en masse was not allowed by the Supreme Court, they just outlaw Coke. This passes. People start drinking Mountain Dew and JOLT instead. The Justice Department brings charges against these drinkers, the people who manufactured it, the people who sold it to them, and the truck drivers who shipped it. It goes to court and the defendants claim that the law wasn't broken. The State says that the law was indeed broken because "everybody refers to soft drinks as Coke." This, of course, begs the question of why, if "Coke" is a synonym for "soft drinks" they passed a law after the Supreme Court clearly stated that they couldn't do such. If "Coke" is not a synonym for "soft drink" then they have no charge against these people. Welcome to the Land of the Freeh.

1 0

Fight CDA 2...?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems to me that the fundamental question that should be asked here is: Does the 10th require strict compliance with the wording of the Constitution per the first sentence of the 10th or explain specificaly what Constitutional sentences are being used to justify the 10th and by extension the entire Constitution itself being exempt of mandatory constitutional review at all stages of a laws life. This is perhaps the key question that needs to be asked in order to properly understand the language of the Constitution. Viewed in the light of strict compliance the wording of the Constitution becomes remarkably free of ambiguity. If the 10th is taken literaly it can only be interpreted as saying: - The federal government is required to justify all its rules, regulations, and offical actions within the explicit context of the text of the Constitution. - In situations where there is no clear ruling the issue is remanded to the states for resolution per their own individual constitutions. Or in cases where the state constitution would not apply to the people. - "to the people" needs to be interpreted as meaning to be left to individual discretion and therefore fundamentaly exempt from review at the state or federal level. - This is the level a behaviour or action becomes a Constitutionaly recognized right exempt from future regulation per the 9th. - The above interpretations are open to change per the methods described for Constitutional Amendments. - "Congress shall make no law..." & "shall not be infringed." become much clearer and less open to federal level inteference. Some of the results of this would be: - The entire 'Drug War' machine would grind to a halt - Many people in jail on solely drug possession and use charges with no other jailable charge would be released immediatly - NASA would require some sort of Constitutional amendment to continue to operate - The interaction and use between the US military and the state and local level regarding law enforcement would cease immediately - CDC would require Constitutional amendment funding - Issues of what is and what is not 'legal' speech would be resolved at the state level. - Confiscation of property without compensation would be completely abandoned. - The recognition that police have no fundamental rights under the Constitution because it in no way draws a distinction between polic & a non-police citizen. Laws can not draw distinction of this sort at the federal level. - Each and every search *must* be at the direct interaction of a magistrate *and* must explicity describe what is being searched for *and further* demonstrate probable cause within a much more precise environment. - The recognition that laws based on the distinction of 'victimless' and 'victim' crimes is a distinction that can't be drawn at the Constitutional level. - A action or behaviour is either protected or it isn't. This would create a set of states with quite a range of constitutional environments. I can just see the "Mormon State of Utah" where the official constitutional religion is Mormonism by amendment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0