🚀 go-pugleaf

leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct29.020013.5458@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com
>(Perry E. Metzger) writes in response to an earlier message of mine:
>| [. . .] The ninth amendment means that the
>| mere fact that the framers could not enumerate every possible
>| disgusting horrible invasion that the engineers of government might
>| devise some day does not mean that we have no protection against said
>| machinations.

>I claim the right to shoot anyone who disagrees with me on the net.  I
>challenge you to find me anything in the Constitution that allows the
>government to interfere in my sacred Right of Revenge.

Aargh!  Once again you are missing a crucial distinction.  You and I are
both people.  Obviously, if we wish to live together in peace, we will
each have to forego our putative "Right of Revenge," or else our children
will be left with an ugly mess to clean up.

However, when our rights conflict with Government's rights, the Bill of
Rights says WE WIN!

>(For those who willing to think rather than dream, the government's
>right to enforce bans against murder and other nasty things are implicit
>in what's known as the "police power" of government.

There is no "police power" in the Constitution.  Quite the contrary!  The
Fourth Amendment is all about *restraint* of police power!

-- George Mitchell (george@tessi.com)