I think he was talking about the Principle of the deal, Jim - about what this means regarding the relationship of the citizenry to the big G. Put all of those insurrections together and what do they spell?
F _ _ _ _ _ F
Blanc
The problem I have with this interpretationis that it overlooks, to me, a bigger point... Mainly that these conflicts dealt with disagreements within the 'big G' and were not directly about the people - big G dichotomy that you refer to. Personaly, I still feel that the people of this country are the true government of this nation. We have representatives who are in a position where they approach their office as a 'job' and not a sacred duty to every individual they meet on the street every day. They see their oath to uphold the Constitution as a minor point and not THE point. Section 1401 and 1402 of the Crime Bill (aptly named since it is a crime) which regard the seizure of private property for funding during a criminal investigation. I go the Constitution and it says that if you take private property for public use you have to recompense the private owner. There is no caveat dealing with whether it is a crime or not or whether it was used in a crime. From my point of view if a 'official' takes your property and does not send you a check (you agreed a priori) for it then they have committed a crime that is in direct and clear violation of the Constitution. All criminal seizure programs are clearly unconstitutional.