At 12:00 AM 1/8/2002 -0500, Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've never quite understood how the amendment-not-ratified-properly-in-1913 argument is supposed to play out.
>If this were 1915 and we suddenly realized that there was some funny business going on, that would be one thing. >But much has changed in the last 90 or so years. Courts have allowed the federal government to seize power not granted by the Constitution (and, in some cases, strictly prohibited by it). Booze prohibition required a constitutional amendment; drug prohibition wouldn't. All the more reason to go on a mindless killing spree. >So even if someone were to prove that the 16th Am. wasn't quite kosher, what would stop the courts from saying -- it wasn't necessary? No but it would provide whatever moral basis one needs to terminate the vermin with extreme prejudice. What's needed are a few terminally ill militia minded souls to give up their last few weeks for the cause. I know I wouldn't hesitate. Maybe an anon cash pool, collected after the fact, to support these patriots' families could be used to offer additional incentive. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty " --- Thomas Jefferson
