From: msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio)
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Organization: TeleSciences CO Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:37:51 GMT

Unfortunately, Mike Huben's response to an article I posted got lost at
my site, so I am forced to respond to parts of it which were quoted by
someone else.

In article <1e0i6tINNijn@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
[responding to my comment about taking the Constitution seriously]
>Sorry, but this does not differentiate you from anyone else except some
>really tiny fringes and those who actually violate the constitution.

There are more than tiny fringes who don't take the Constitution seriously.
Most people really wouldn't mind a violation of the Constitution if it
benefitted them or if it was for the common good.  If you disagree, then
tell me how many times the Constitution was even mentioned during the
recent presidential campaign.  People just take the Constitution for
granted and expect that it will always be there, as if it were physically
impossible for the government to violate it.

>The Constitution does not merely protect you from abuse: it also states
>how your responsabilities to the government (as embodied by laws) shall be
>decided.  If that's not clear enough responsability, you can look at what
>article 3 says about treason.

Article III:3 has nothing but restrictions on the government:
   o  Treason shall *only* consist of blah blah blah.
   o  Nobody can be convicted of treason unless blah blah blah.
   o  Here is Congress' power with respect to punishment: blah.
   o  Here are restrictions on the punishment: blah.

[responding to my comment that governmentally-forced contributions to
 charity would require a new Amendment]
>Sorry, but that was done in the 16th ammendment.  It was created specifically
>to legitimize such taxes, and has been interpreted as such by the Supreme
>Court.  Therefore, no such 27th ammendment is needed.  [...]

For the third time, the 16th Amendment does not repeal any part of the 5th.
Just because 16 is greater than 5 doesn't mean that the 5th is automatically
done away with by the 16th.  The 16th Amendment grants Congress only the
power to collect taxes on incomes.  It does not grant Congress the power to
spend it any way it pleases, nor does it grant the power to take that money
from individuals without providing just compensation.

For example, Congress can't give tax revenue to an institute of religion,
because it is prohibited from doing this by the 1st Amendment.  Just
because 16 is greater than 1 doesn't mean that tax revenue can be spent
without regard for 1st Amendment restrictions.  Neither can Congress
(legally) take tax money from individuals without providing just
compensation, because it is prohibited from doing this by the 5th Amendment.

>[...]                                                  Legal is what the
>Supreme Court says it is.

No, legal is what the Constitution says it legal.  You seem to be ruling
out the possibility that the Supreme Court could overstep its bounds.

--
                      The above opinions are mine alone and cannot be
  _____               held by anyone else without prior written consent.
 /o\   \________________________________________________________________
 8 8    ===o=xoo=x=o=xo=ox=== Michael Savastio (m.savastio@telesci.uucp)
 \_/___/   *******^*******^   Printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2328 alt.politics.libertarian:1937