-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote:

Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th being unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what the Supreme Court says it is, unfortunately.

Personally, I do not believe in the infallibility of the Supreme Court. The people on the Court are just people. They can make mistakes. They can have ulterior motives. They can be corrupt. The Constitution is understood by many people to be something like a charter in which the people of the United States granted the government certain powers, reserving all others to themselves. The Constitution has meaning. The Supreme Court may not amend this meaning, it may only interpret it. When the Court makes a decision which is obviously not consistent with the meaning of the Constitution it is reasonable to say that the Court is in error. In an extreme situation many people would say that it is reasonable for the people of the United States to revoke the Charter granted to this government. Consider this scenario: Chief Justice Rehnquist appears in Court wearing a tutu. He declares that the Court has just decided that in emergency situations it is proper and Constitutional for the Supreme Court to take control of the government to protect democracy. Would it be reasonable to say that the Constitution had changed or would it be reasonable to put the Chief Justice in the loony bin? Let's take an example from history. The United States decides to enter World War I. People who are opposed to this war and to the draft make speeches opposing both policies. A law is passed forbidding this activity. The Chief Justice declares that speech may be controlled if it is akin to "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie house." Following this logic, the government jails people who speak against the War and the draft. One of these people, Eugene Debs, campaigns from jail for the Presidency and gets about a million votes. Would it be proper to conclude that speaking against the War may be punished Constitutionally or that the Court had failed to carry out its duties? 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 iQEVAwUBNHm/SZaWtjSmRH/5AQEifgf/U1n6bFaEy66IyuezGhSG0AbDPCKBfwWd iMuqhy5ZoHqJR/v0RHw2Wupp3ACuYe/CgUrrftN0bzr8WaWThMr8H2kxsnxNoHX4 0cowJfnRxnJkSNoFKYa+t3y/otjYW+YRWBfoyKktvwiK30r7H2jisKPAoOCir8NP W5P10QhzKAvCp/16sCEpqYbzbXDnaiY9D55E6Ew7mLEECeGm+raATUvayksA+BT/ RNhZXQTYMYk7AfeqKxp7fuikQegTRbwC8d4G0jT6kduFOWvI4YaQIKam+eR8Dec9 jzDO5ckcPLaB80p6jQEc0nob4ltBz4mbDqqnc2YBfsAvTSKBIGKKCQ== =IzrC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----