Forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:02:38 -0800 From: Blanc <blancw@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@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|