🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1415@osiris.UUCP>, Marcus J. Ranum (mjr@osiris.UUCP) writes:

> In article <4623@videovax.Tek.COM>, stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice)
> writes:
>> In article <5416@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Moore
>> 
>> Please note that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past
>> and does not agree with you.
> 
> They're just just humans, too, y'know. The supreme court is the final
> arbiter of justice in this land, but I do not think you are correct in
> your assumption that the supreme court is not possibly fallible.  . . .

Hmmmm. . .  There seems to be a bit of confusion here.  *I* certainly
have not made the "assumption that the supreme court is not possibly
fallible"!!!

The point was not fallibility, but reality.  There have been a number of
wild statements made as to what is or is not constitutional.  Despite all
the theorizing, the reality is that the Supreme Court decides what is and
what is not constitutional.

A person who insists on a viewpoint the Supreme Court has already
considered and rejected is in the same position as those who attempt
to debate what constitutes "legal money."  Although the courts have
declared the question to be resolved (and all challenges to the decision 
"frivolous"), people still claim they don't have to pay taxes because the
Constitution requires that all money be gold and silver.

Those who stake their positions on such claims are in for some big
surprises!  The courts routinely reject such claims without hearing the
case.  Oftentimes, a large fine and/or a jail sentence is meted out for
contempt of court.

>                                                            . . .  A judge,
> be (s)he human or otherwise will never be able to embody a platonic ideal
> of "justice".  You can place your faith in kings and elected judges - I
> suspect the driving force that was originally behind America did NOT.

The Founding Fathers were steeped in the philosophy of the Reformation,
which taught that man was by nature sinful and in need of a Savior.
From that philosophical base flowed the checks and balances that are
built into our system of government -- it was obvious to the writers of
the Constitution that no human institution could be perfect, so each
part of the government must be reined in by the other parts.  The courts
check the excesses of the legislative and judicial branches, and are in
turn checked by them.

Like the majority of the Founding Fathers, I realize that man is by
nature sinful and in need of a Savior (I can see this need in my own
life!).  When I came to this realization, I embraced Jesus Christ as my
Savior.  His presence in my life freed me from slavery to my own sin,
and gave me a proper perspective of that which goes on around me.  There
are two primary components of that view:

  1. All men, no matter how well-intentioned, are fallible.  (This is
     true both for those who are born again and for those who spurn
     the name of Jesus.)  Thus, it is important that checks and
     balances be in place whenever men hold positions of authority.

  2. Because we are all fallible, we have a tendency to fantasize about
     what should be, rather than recognize what is.  In order to fulfill
     our duty to God (worship of God and service of man), we must be
     in touch with reality.  If we deny the reality of God, we will not
     worship Him.  If we deny the reality of (e.g.) hunger, we will not
     help those who are hungry.

Because I have no illusions about "kings and elected [or appointed]
judges," I do not expect perfection from them.  Because I am in touch
with reality (rather than enraptured with theory), I understand that
in the United States today, the Supreme Court defines that which is
constitutional and that which is unconstitutional.

> You have confused POWER with justice. The government can do what it
> wants to its people because it CAN. Don't be so STUPID as to argue that
> the fact that a branch of the government authorized another branch of
> the government to rape its people's privacy makes it RIGHT !

No, I haven't "confused POWER with justice"!!!  What I have been doing,
instead, is proposing the (apparently novel!) view that reality is
important.  The *reality* is that the Supreme Court has decided that
such things are constitutional.  To change that decision will almost
certainly require electing a number of people to high office that are
committed to changing the composition of the Supreme Court and/or
changing the Constitution.

None but the naive believe that that which is legal is automatically
that which is right. . .

> If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical,
> go crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I get as crude as possible.  . . .

Let's try to avoid the crude, OK?

					Steve Rice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com
old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever