🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5534@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Moore
(jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU) writes:

[ quotes and such deleted ]

> I can say whatever I want to.  Once I have said it, I am responsible
> for my statements, and if if it decided in court that I violated laws
> regarding libel, endangering public safety by screaming 'fire,' or
> telling the Soviets the exact location of every vitally important
> widget in the US Navy, then I can be fined or jailed.  HOWEVER, none
> of this gives the government the right to listen to my private phone
> conversations (inside or outside the United States - I am aware of the
> court's decision and I think it is wrong) before a suspicion of guilt
> has been established and a warrant issued by a court. 

Three misconceptions here, at least:

  1. That disagreement with a court decision affects the validity of
     the decision.

  2. That the government must wait for overt signs that a crime has 
     been or is being committed before taking action.

  3. That any one of us on the net (or elsewhere) has the ability to
     decide that "none of this gives the government the right to listen
     to my private phone conversations . . ."

The first misconception is prevalent, but obviously wrong.  After all,
burglars clearly disagree with court decisions upholding burglary
statutes.  But burglars are convicted and imprisoned daily, nonetheless.

The second misconception is also clearly not true.  The recent trials of
numerous Mafia bosses were based in large part on evidence gained by
wiretaps.  And those wiretaps were permitted by the courts because a
much weaker standard of proof had been met than would be required at
a trial.  Basically, the warrants were issued because there was reason
to believe that a crime might have been committed, or was about to be
committed.

Like the first and second misconceptions, the third is also clearly not
true.  Our system, as it is presently constituted, places the Supreme
Court in the position of final arbiter of what is and what is not
constitutional.  It turns out that having a final arbiter is essential --
otherwise, we would have unending standoffs between factions divided over
every conceivable issue.

Do you believe that the paper dollars you use are "legal money"?  Well,
there is a contingent that does not, and argues that because the money
we are using is not gold or silver (and therefore "not constitutional"),
they don't have to pay taxes.  (Are you willing to abide by their
refusal to pay taxes, thereby increasing your own?)  The Supreme
Court has already spoken to this issue, rejecting the argument that
our money is "unconstitutional".  Those who disagree must still pay
taxes.

Similarly, there is a contingent that believes that the government does
not have the right to listen to phone conversations, etc.  The point
that needs to be understood is that this is true *only if the Supreme
Court agrees*!  If the Supreme Court says that the government has the
right, then it does have the right!!!

Our Constitution is a marvelous instrument for protecting our freedoms.
However, the Constitution applies to everyday life precisely and only as
it is interpreted by the nine Justices of the Supreme Court.  If you
disagree with the Court's interpretations, you can:

  1. Initiate a court case involving the issue in question, and ask
     the Supreme Court to reverse itself.

  2. Ask the President to appoint Justices who agree with you (when and
     if he gets the opportunity).

  3. Ask the Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
     the area(s) you are concerned about.

  4. Ask the Congress to remove (by impeachment) the Justices who have
     been in the majority on decisions you disapprove of.

  5. Ask the Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment embodying
     changes that will produce the results you desire.

  6. Ask the States to petition for a Constitutional Convention (the
     legislatures of 38 states will have to pass a resolution requesting
     that such a convention be convened).

Reality is sometimes a bit uncomfortable to accept, but it is better to
face unpleasant realities than to live in a dream world!  All else is
just tilting at windmills.

					Steve Rice

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