🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4288@well.UUCP>, Bob Bickford (rab@well.UUCP) writes:

> . . .

> Steve's position amounts to saying that since the government has
> the ability to enforce it's seizure of certain powers which in fact
> it does not have under our Constitution, then we shouldn't argue with
> it on these points.  This is a fine pragmatic position.

Only half of this is my position.  I'm not suggesting we should't try
to change the situation.  I am suggesting that sitting around whining
that "it isn't constitutional" is not reasonable behavior.  Until we
alter the composition of the Supreme Court enough to change its collective
mind on the issue, or pass an amendment to the Constitution that prevents
the Court from ruling against us, we are stuck.

To re-emphasize my point, the behavior in question is constitutional
if the Supreme Court says it is.  The only way to fix the problem is
to fix the Court or to fix the Constitution (or both).

					Steve Rice

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