NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/austin/talk/354

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!seas.smu.edu!utacfd.uta.edu!news.uta.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ibmchs!auschs!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan
From: [e-mail] (Alan R. Weiss)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:04:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News)
Organization: (speaking only for myself)
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

>>I repeat:  just because a Right is not specified in the Constition
>>does not mean I do not have it, by birthright.  This is where
>>we fundamentally disagree.  For reference, I refer you to
>>Madison and Jefferson.  Not to mention Lysander Spooner.
>
>Instead of just beating on the tenth, re: protecting fundamental rights
>not found in the Constitution, take a look at the ninth also.  Throw in
>a dash of incorporation and stir.

I don't know what you mean, Brendan.  Constitutional law isn't
like cooking school  :-)

>  It might be useful to define either
>(Alan's or John's) position with respect to where does one stand WRT
>using the 9th to "invent" a right, ...

Wow!  Two "with respect to's" in one (run-on) sentence!  Entering
parsing mode now ......


> does one view gov't as having power
>unless restricted or no power unless granted, and the individual having
>freedoms unless restricted or no freedoms unless granted.

E2BIG!  EINVAL!

OK.  I am a "one."  How "you" view the division of power is up to you.

If you are asking what "I" believe, it is simply this:  the Constitution
and Bill of Rights (with Amendments) enumerates those powers assigned
to the national, federal government, and states that all other powers
are reserved to the States and/or the People (I relent, John, I relent!).

Now, what does that mean?  It does not DEFINE the rights I have as
a human being.  Since the division of power is a little unclear, an
industry has evolved, called "the legal system" to help decide.  The
legal system had to go on something to start out with, and so it looked
to the source material for the Constitution -- Virginia's Articles
(written by Jefferson), John Locke, etc.  The key idea to grok is that
"one" (you, me, John Haugh, Hillary Clinton :-) are all endowed by our
(#include deity.h) with Natural Rights.  Madison, Jefferson, that entire
gang of revolutionaries wrote extensively on this, the concept of liberty.


>A similar discussion in alt.rush-limbaugh prompted me to buy Bork's
>"The Tempting of America" last week - read it an you'll see what I
>mean.
>
>Brendan
>--
>Brendan B. Boerner        Phone: [phone]
>Internet: [e-mail]    MHS: bboerner@novell
>Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

The Justices of the Supreme Court are charged with interpreting
the Constitution.  Some are strict interpreters (Robert Bork
is), and some are liberal, loose-as-a-goose interpreters (Earl Warren,
for example).  I refer you to Charles Murray's book, "On Good Government",
as well as The Federalist Papers for more information.  I'm not
buying Bob Bork's book.

--
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. [e-mail] | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  [e-mail]        | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | NEW NUMBER!!