From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Bill of Rights..
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:59:06 GMT

In article <5853.2AAFE439@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Rex.Beard@f32.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rex Beard) writes:
>  LB> Leah.Wesolowski@p0.f2.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leah Wesolowski) 
>      
>  LB> Give me a paragraph number where The Bill of Rights says "You 
>  LB> have the right to committ CRIMES.  It was not in the copy I 
>  LB> read in school!!! 
> 
>     I guess I have to respond. There are a few problems with your
> 	interpretation of the Constitution. (At least acording to it's
> 	authors.)
> 
> 	When someone claims that that the war on drugs is taking away
> 	the Bill of Rights, you respond that you don't have the right
> 	to commit crimes. Here are a few problems.
 
In the original post-oh so long ago- the discussion started with the police
finding drugs in a persons house and the subsequent actions, and then the
bill of rights was brought up saying his rights were violated.

> 
> 	First, the poster never said anything about commiting a crime.

Previous post, to which this was a responce.

> 	They only said the war on drugs was taking away Constitutional
> 	rights. For example do you think that the Bill of Rights lists
> 	the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures?
> 

No!  But I was not convinced that the original post was "unreasonable searches
or seizures.

> 	If someone was searched without a search warrant in the name of the
> 	war on drugs, would you say that it was a violation of the Bill of
> 	Rights? 
> 

Yes. And a friend of mine recently emailed me info showing that the police are
using The War on Drugs to abuse the rights of citizens, and I am very much
against that.

> 	Next, is perhaps the biggest error. I'll explain it by example.
> 	Suppose that Congress outlaws free speach. Now if someone speaks
> 	freely they have certainly broken the law, right? Well, by the
> 	reasoning in your post that someone would not have the "right
> 	to break the law."
 
As the Voters, it is our responsibility to prevent that.

> 
> 	The point I'm trying to make is perhaps the law itself is
> 	un-Constitutional.
> 

Then it need to be tested, in court, and blamed on the appropriate people.

> 	The next error you make is the most dangerous. You seem to say that
> 	if a "right" is not listed in the Bill of Rights, then it is not
> 	a "right".  That is untrue. I refer yo uto the 9th and 10th
> 	amendments in the Bill of Rights. They basically say that just because
> 	there is a list of rights that doesn't mean that these are the *only*
> 	rights.
> 

But, do the 9th and 10th amendments say you have the right to keep illegal
substances in your home???

> 
>  LB> Give me a paragraph number where The [Constitution] says "[Congress] 
>  LB> ha[s] the [power] to [Abrige speach].  It was not in the copy I 
>  LB> [wrote]!!! 
> 
>  That is the dangerous trap you have fallen into. You have reversed
>  the whole basis of our government. It is the *Government* that must
>  cite chapter and verse in the Constitution to show why it has the
>  *power* to do a thing. It is *not* the people.
> 
This is a dangerous trap you have fallen into, editing my post to make it say
what you want to reply to.
Besides, the *Government* was not posting on the net, it was a discussion 
between two citizens.

> 
>  And of course the only way to get people in office who *respect* the
>  Constitution is to vote Libertarian this year.
> 
>  -rex-
> 

No thanks.

The point of my original post is that the people were blaming Bush and calling
him a Nazi because of the War on Drugs, and seizures of property, which all
or almost all the laws were on the books before he took office, and making laws
is beyond his powers to begin with.
IF the law is wrong, change the law, don't Trash the people who use or abide
by the law.

Larry Billings