We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The Supreme Court is NOT a representative of the people. Only the people may decide what the Constitution means. That means there are two and ONLY two ways to INTERPRET the Constitution, 1. Congress passes a law they believe is constitutional. IF a state or person disagree THEN it goes to the Supreme Court, not to decide what the Supreme Court believes the Constitution says, but rather to determine if the law as worded and carried out is commiserate with the Constitution and the spirit of AMERICAN democracy it is intended to embody. Let's take the first one, wording. Let's say a state passes a law that says "A person may go to their doctor for aid in ending their life. The doctor is under no legal obligation to help. However, if the doctor should decide to help then no legal ramifications may be taken upon the doctor." Clearly, per the 9th and 10th, there is no section of the Constitution that can be interpreted to give the federal level any authority over individual lifestyle decisions. So clearly the question becomes one of states rights versus individual rights. The Constitution places NO LIMITS on personal rights. Now what if a state passed a law prohbiting assisted suicide? These would fall under the prohibited acts of the 1st. Is the law prohibitory in nature? If so then it clearly violates the 1st, 9th, and 10th and is therefore unconstitutional. Would any/every instance of the act itself cause harm without consent? For example; murder, rape, theft. If so then it clearly is in violation of the 1st. We may not force people to commit acts that are against their beliefs. That would be in violation of the 1st., sanctioning one particular point of view over all points of view. So, what section of the Constitution does the assissted suicide question violate? None. So, somebody want to explain why the answer to the question, "Why is assisted suicide illegal", isn't because a bunch of Christian assholes have decided that we all gotta believe in their fucking god. It is clear that the thesis upon which the Supreme Court is based are flawed. One thing that clearly needs to be addressed is how to replace them with something that might work better (only time will tell). Perhaps instead of odd, it should be even. That would at least hold hope for them doing nothing (which is always preferable to making an error). Now, onward through the fog (I stole that ...) Where is that spirit explained? The Declaration of Independance. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (Go read Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address while this is in your mind - Lincoln was scum. He intentionaly started the Civil War.) An AMERICAN bends their knee to no man, and asks no man to bend theirs. Ultimately that is the challenge we are faced with. An American has the right to resist any and all coercion. There is as a consequence of these two simple paragraphs no question as to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. There is no question as to what 'seperation of church and state' mean. There is no question as to who has the ultimate right to decide when and how they will die. There is no question that the fantasy of 'executive privilige' is just that. Etc. etc. etc. 2. The people amend the constitution. The feds don't have shit to say about this one. If 3/4 of the states got together tomorrow and voted to nulify the tax amendment there would be nothing Congress, POTUS, or the Supreme Court could do about it. Just about every federal tax agent would be out of a job the next day. They are not given the power of review for state initiated amendments. This is why no (not one) of the Amendments ever went through that process. In every (yes, every one) case the Congress has taken the issue upon themselves to forstall any popular action. I proposed a long time ago that the best way for people to get control of their government back is to begin to organize local voting with the express goal of electing officials who will submit 'sanctioned amendments' from the body at the state level. Then through a national forum each of the state groups would work to develop amendments that were agreeable to all (or some large percentage). These 'sanctioned amendments' would be identical and submitted to state legislatures as nearly concurrent as possible. Let me quote from one of those founding fathers Scalia is so keen we follow strictly, "The earth belongs to the living, not the dead." Thomas Jefferson They gave us a challenge to live up to, one they had not and could not have reached, they knew they were only starting the first few steps of a long(!) winding road. Are we in the weeds yet? ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------