-Caveat Lector-
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:44:34 -0600 K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>-Caveat Lector-
>The Living Constitution
>by David Dieteman
>One of the most nefarious influences in the minds of Americans is
>the notion that the federal constitution of 1787 (the "U.S.
>Constitution") is a "living" document.
Gotta agree here.
>Thus, despite the fact that the Fifth Amendment states that "No
>man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
>process of law," the United States Supreme Court once found it
>"unconstitutional" for states to have capital punishment. It is
>beyond rational dispute that a document which states that a man
>may be "deprived of life" following the "due process of law" does
>not itself outlaw executions.
Right here I skipped down and sure enough Mr. Dieteman is a lawyer. The
fly in the ointment is "due process of law". Due Process has become what
ever the lawmakers define it as. That is the problem. As we have seen
over and over (and will continue to see), lawyers (and district
attorneys, a particularly vile form of lawyer) write the laws in
'special' language. They then 'interpret' the laws. The result is a
system that has no relation to common sense, a jury of your peers, or
justice for all. Common sense has been replaced by legal trickery, a
jury of your peers is often instructed on how they "must" find, and
justice for all has become justice for all that can afford it. Laws
written in plain language that the average person can understand, freedom
for a jury to make whatever findings they feel are appropriate, and a
cleansing of the court process are direly needed.
>Imagine for a moment that the
>speed limit was a "living" speed limit.
It should be. Outside of urban areas, speed limits are merely a way for
local governments to fatten the public coffers.
>Imagine that the laws against rape are "living," and this game is no
>longer funny.
Not funny is the 17 year old who is currently doing a manditory 20 years
for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.
>It is of the utmost importance, however, for citizens of a republic
>such as the United States, and for citizens of the states and cities,
>to realize that when you do not like the law, the way to change
>it is not to pretend that it is not the law.
Don't confuse the Constitution with the "law". The Constitution defines
what the Government can and cannot do to the people. The "Law" is a
continually growing modifier of the Constitution. Since the "Body of
Law" has grown so oppressive, the only viable alternative is for people
to, for the most part, just ignore it. If all the laws on the books were
enforced equally, every one of us would be in jail. Instead, they are
selectively applied according to the whims of the government. This is
not a system of justice, but a thinly disguised oppressive government.
>The concept of a constitution is of a document (or a group of
>unwritten concepts and some written documents, as in the English
>constitution) which serves as a skeletal structure for the body
>politic. Rather than being a functional law which sets the speed
>limit, for example, a constitution sets the shape of the regime
>which will then make the laws which help us get through everyday
>life.
That is the way it should be. However, I maintain that, in the U.S. we
have allowed our legal system to get so far out of hand as to make the
Constitution irrelevant to everyday life.
> (Stop laughing – that is the theory)
(I'm not laughing. I think you are serious...and that is scary but
understandable considering the investment you have in maintaining the
current system)
>The trouble in the United States is that certain Americans, in their
>super-hero like zeal to "make things right," lost patience with
>the law. They chose to operate outside the legal process "to get
>results." Guess what: your mother was right. This choice has
>consequences.
The same choices we made in 1776? Are the consequences the same too? I
hope so.
>Whereas American law in the 1950s and early 1960s may have
>been too slow to adapt to social changes, the pendulum has now
>swung fully to the other side. Today, no change can come fast
>enough, and the notion that the law presents any real limits on
>political action is nearly lost.
On political action I would agree. However, on the social front we are
far too controlled by "The Law".
<snip the anti Clinton rant>
>To be fair, the American disrespect for the law is not only the
>product of zealous do-gooders striving to overturn unjust laws. It is
>also the product of misguided legislators and citizens – who, to
>be fair, are zealous do-gooders as well – who have given America
>a severe case of hyperlexis (that's Latin for "too much law").
OK, I agree profoundly with that. TOO MUCH LAW!!!
>St. Thomas Aquinas famously writes in his Summa Theologica that
>the law should not require more of a people than they are able to
>do, as they will lose respect for the law.
I think the quote I use regularly is far more appropriate (egotist that I
am): Cesar Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishments" (1763). "It is
better to prevent crimes than to punish them. That is the chief purpose
of all good legislation, which is the art of leading men---if one may
apply the language of mathematics to the blessings and evils of
life---toward the maximum possible happiness and the minimum possible
misery...To prohibit a multitude of trivial acts is not to prevent the
crimes they may occasion, but to create new ones, and to define at
pleasure virtues and vices, which we are exhorted to regard as eternal
and immutable."
>Despite the fact that St.Thomas lived from 1225 to 1274, our "experts"
in Washington (who would be ousted by term limits) have not learned this
lesson. Thus,
>the Congress passes its share of burdensome laws – the tax
>code, for one – while spawning other federal agencies with
> "rule-making" powers that are effectively legislative powers.
Beccaria is more modern by about 500 years, and more to the point, but I
agree that our governing bodies have not learned any of it. The truth is
that they don't care about it either. Their goal is to further their own
interests (mainly their bank accounts). What little thought they give
the Constitution or the People, as named in that Constitution, is how
best to control them.
> "The government thinks we're all too
>foolish to make decisions for ourselves."
>In response, sensible Americans have come to despise our laws.
>This is fine; it is the natural and expected response of sane and
>intelligent persons to idiotic regulations.
This is fine. But.....
> But from a long-term perspective, it is bad.
>This is the trouble with the nations recovering
>from 70 years of Communism: the population has grown so used to
>black markets, bribing officials, and ignoring the kleptocrats in
>power that they are having difficulty in creating a civil society
>based on trust, work (private enterprise) and cooperation.
It is also a symptom of a People who, once again, are being forced to
overthrow an oppressive governing body. The "Black Market" is a product
of prohibition of what the people want. Bribing officials is a way of
doing business at a Corporate/Government level through the use of
"Political Action Committees", "Soft Money", "Campaign Contributions" and
rewards after their term has expired. We no longer trust our
politicians, or government in general. Where the rubber meets the road
we do operate on trust a lot in our daily dealings with each other. We
are, generally (at least here in the rural areas) civil to each other,
and cooperative among ourselves.
>The Constitution is indeed "living," so long as by "living" we mean
>that it has not been repealed.
...or made redundant by the "Body of Law".
> In terms of its actual effect on
>our daily lives, however, it is as dead as the men who wrote it.
>We live in an America defined by the lust for power and a disregard
>for the very concept of law. This cannot change until the American
>citizenry realizes that government, no matter how "well-
>intentioned," cannot magically solve everyone's problems. It is only
>by hard work and individual effort that any problem can be solved
We don't disregard the "very concept of law", we are growing to disregard
the concept that government can take away our rights and freedoms as
given by the Constitution.
<snip the Yard stuff, my yard is bigger than that>
>This is why private charity – individual initiative – is the
>best approach to social problems. We must care for our own
>relatives, parishioners, and neighbors who are sick, unemployed, or
>similarly troubled. There is no substitute for the intimate local
>knowledge of a problem, and for the desire to help someone you
>know, rather than a desire to help a faceless "humanity" which you
>can never see. Most importantly, there is no way to avoid the
>reality of hard work. The decision to "let the government do it" is
>simply a decision to "let someone else do it" – and it is clear
>where such decisions usually lead: nothing gets done, and we end
>up with a bigger mess than at the beginning.
This would be true if we didn't pay so much to the government only to see
it wasted, stolen, 'appropriated' or otherwise not returned to us in
infrastructure or services.
>Want to live under the rule of law instead of the rule of "great men"
>(who turn out to be merely charismatic boobs that lied their way
>to the top)? Work hard, and don't expect Big Brother to help you
>out. In such a world, there is no need for Big Brother, hence no
>need for him to take half your income – and no sophistry like
>a "living" Constitution.
Pretty Calvanistic. Of course, Mr. Dieteman is also going for a PhD in
Philosophy at The Catholic University of America, so one would expect a
certain "Christian" slant to all this. A more secular view may be that,
while we need a framework of government that is based on the cooperative
and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode
of organized society, and we do need to spend some money on things that
are for the good of the whole, we do not need a centeralized system of
laws that make us a one size fits all country. The "Law" is but one
problem (a BIG one, I'll admit) we have to face. As long as we are a
Vampire Capitalist haven, we have to make sure that those at the top of
the food chain pay their share (which I may add is a far greater share
than they currently pay). "From each according to their means, to each
according to their need" has had some bad press but it still is the best
way to keep people equal.
Jayson
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
