From: woody@alumni.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism,alt.religion.wicca,alt.society.anarchy,alt.society.generation-x Subject: Re: Constitutional Law was Re: "An Armed Man [sic] is a Citizen..." Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:45:54 -0800 Organization: In Phase Consulting Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <01bd0ccf$ee7ee8a0$acb09bcf@skippi> <01bd0db4$5e481aa0$1ce6adce@skippi> <349D2BD4.45A9@NOSPAMbellsouth.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-207-214-252-49.psdn11.pacbell.net X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.3.5 X-Face: *EM/=Qz\+KSS+N+*n8tv.@'6!AD%;Gn8d^'J-WT>Ls|5c\RZuz"un{5#yd"eL .>)i3I;,G,1UD]02PAc+A2*+a2a$(?&U5_J,xOh6+J& Path: Supernews70!Supernews60!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.siscom.net!news.wgn.net!nntp.lsan03.pbi.net!news.pbi.net!news.pacbell.net!woody Xref: Supernews70 alt.atheism:574796 alt.satanism:83004 alt.religion.wicca:103183 alt.society.anarchy:65095 alt.society.generation-x:175553 nightsha@NOSPAMbellsouth.net wrote: > You two also seem to have a bit of a personal argument going on, which I > will decline from joining in on. May you both enjoy a bright and happy > holiday, no matter which religion you follow or what you call the > holiday season. :) I don't know why that is. All I said was that the theoretical rights granted to us by the Constitution are not as fixed in stone as some would have us believe. And even the scope or interpretation of those rights which are in fact enumerated by the Constitution evolves over time--meaning that it's not a very far cry to imagine a near future where religious intolerance of witches (for example) was in fact considered by future courts as "constitutional." Further, while theoretical rights are one thing, the practical expression of those rights is another. In particular, the right to one's religious beliefs, the right to protection against unreasonable search and/or detainment, and the right to express political beliefs unfettered by the government have all been stomped on by our government. And in some cases (such as the treatment of native americans), lower state and federal courts have upheld the poor treatment as legal and constitutional. (In particular, the illegal seizure of the various lands held by the Salinan Tribe was upheld as recently as just a few dozen years ago in California courts--because Salinans were not permitted to own property when the lands were seized. This seizure, by the way, caused my grandfather to lose his home at the end of a federal marshall's gun at the turn of this century--and many of my relatives were actually shot during the process of running my ancestors out of their village.) Malachias Invictus has strongly disagreed with my above stated position, and for some reason has devolved into calling me a "butcherer" of the Bill of Rights. *shrug* If you don't know how our rights are actually maintained, and how to fight for your rights (aside from calling for another revolution or threatening to shoot law enforcement officials), then how can you actually keep your rights? - Bill (Who, as I said before, has had family on the 'business end' of those "protected rights" enumerated in the Bill of Rights.) -- William Edward Woody | In Phase Consulting woody@alumni.caltech.edu | Macintosh & Microsoft Windows http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~woody NOTE: I'm using PacBell as an ISP for PPP access. Use the Caltech Alumni account (listed above) for all electronic corrispondance.