On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:20:36PM -0400, Robert J. Spitzer wrote:
> In his comments on my 2000 Chicago-Kent Law Review article, Clayton
> Cramer is wrong in every instance.  See below.
> Regards,
> Bob Spitzer
> 


> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayton E. Cramer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Spitzer's article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review
> 


> Spitzer also observes:
> 
> "In short, Levinson offers a bona fide constitutional argument
> proposing that vigilantism and citizen violence, including armed
> insurrection, against the government are legal, proper, and even
> beneficial activities within the Second Amendment umbrella. The idea
> that vigilantism and armed insurrection are as constitutionally
> sanctioned as voting is a proposition of such absurdity that one is
> struck more by its boldness than by its pretensions to
> seriousness. Yet it appears repeatedly in the individualist
> literature."
> 
> What a concept! Our government was born in revolution--not by
> voting. Is anyone surprised that they guaranteed a "right of the
> people" to be armed--but didn't even guarantee every free white man
> a right to vote? (Look carefully: the Constitution left
> qualifications for voting to the states.)
> 
> Spitzer: America was indeed born in revolution; but the modern
> Constitution was not written until four years after the formal
> conclusion of the war, and the Bill of Rights not added until four
> years after that; the Constitution institutionalized the revolution
> by calling for political change through peaceful and democratic
> means -- elections, juries, (peaceful) petitioning the government
> for redress of grievances, etc.  As if this weren't obvious enough,
> Article I, sec. 8 of the Constitution notes that militias had/have
> three stated purposes: "execute the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS
> INSURRECTIONS [emphasis added] and repel Invasions." Any so-called
> "right of revolution" occurs outside of the Constitution, not within
> it.

As to the last sentence: Not so. Amdnts IX and X.

-- 

Charles Curley                  /"\    ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software       \ /    Respect for open standards
and/or writing?                  X     No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com    / \    No M$ Word docs in email

Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0  809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to