🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1obdgsINN13d@sol.tis.com> mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
>	There is a difference between "legal rights" and "rights"
>in the moral sense. I think it's somewhat analogous to the difference
>between "legal system" and "justice." One is the ideal, and the other
>is an attempt to implement it in reality.

But the Constitution doesn't say, in the 4th Amendment, "the LEGAL right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against
unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated...etc".  It is
(IMO) talking about a moral right.  One that has been compromised by
Reagan, Bush, et al in the insane War on Drugs but a right nonetheless.
At least, that's my take on it.  Being politically liberal, if anything
I'd like (I insist on) erring on the side of too much freedom.

>	I agree that messing with the underpinnings of our society
>(for that is in a sense what The Constitution is) is dangerous, but
>societies must do that to survive. Whether you like it or not,
>democracy is the tyranny of the mediocre. That means that if a
>majority of Americans want to vote a law against wearing underwear,
>then only outlaws will wear underwear.

In such case, I would insist on being an outlaw.  This is going off into
The Big Silly now...but, if there had previously been a Constitutional
guarantee for the right to wear underwear...and that right was revoked...
IMO, the government would have clearly have invalidated itself.  The
original guarantee would have been a wise addition, with the intent of
maximizing freedom in undergarments.  The latter would clearly be an
attempt by hack politicians of the Kennedy/Chaffee/Moynihan ilk to
supply a quick fix to a complex social problem.  The government does
not motivate me to act morally, non-violently by passing laws against
violent behavior.  Rather, I was taught at an early age that violence
unrelated to self defense is wrong.

> The other route is to argue
>that The Constitution is a moral document, inspired by divinity.
>Considering its manifest mistakes, that's a dangerous tack to
>try to argue.

Still, for all its flaws  in the areas of sexism and racism, I'd say
that it is the best such document the world has come up with to date.
And we will continue to be one of the best countries around until we
decide that the Bill of Rights is inexpedient and perform major surgery
on it.

     don