From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:23:24 GMT

In article <84097@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>
	[snip, rip, hack...]

>I'm not such a "big proponent" of reinterpreting the Constitution as you think.
>I've said... the courts do not (and should not) apply "original intent"
					  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>as the sole (or even necessarily major) criterion of interpretation.  

	In this, I must wholly disagree.  To interpret the constitution on
	any basis other than original intent is to clearly and effectively
	redefine the semantics of the document.  The authors of the document
	wrote it in a deliberate fashion WRT meaning and therefore intent.
	To interpret the document in any way that does not follow the original
	intent of same, at best opens the door to potential abuse of power 
	through changing interpretation motivated by vested interest. In cases 
	where a conflict of interest exists, this method of varying 
	interpretation can be easily misused in order to gain some form of 
	power advantage.

	The question of limit also arises out of your assertions, i.e. at
	what point do we say that an interpretation is no longer valid?
	If we do not stick to the original intent of the statements set forth 
	in the constitution, there is really no definite way to reasonably
	guarantee that such interpretation will not range far and wide and
	that enormous damage will not be done to the rights and liberties
	of the people.  If you question this, I suggest that you need go no
	further than to look at the War on Drugs(tm) and the civil foreiture
	laws associated with said "war". These are so blatantly in violation
	of certain amendments in the Bill of Rights that I'm not sure of even
	where to begin talking about it.  They are CLEARLY and WITHOUT DOUBT
	unconstitutional, yet here they are, and I would bet money that if
	these would come to be ruled on by the SC, that same would almost
	certainly allow such law to stand, at least to some degree, saying that
	they are constitutional, and this would be a filthy lie.
	
>In fact, our present system of government has been based on a lot of 
>questionable interpretations and reinterpretations of law.  Witness the 
>current situation in which women have a legal right to abortions, by Supreme 
>Court interpretation, and they are probably going to lose it, also by Supreme 
>Court interpretation.  

	Not that it is relevant, but are you saying the Roe v. Wade decision 
	was incorrect?  

	Nevertheless, you contradict yourself here in general by recognizing 
	that the Courts interpretations are faulty, whereas above you also 
	state that they do not (and should not) use original intent as the 
	current meaning of the document.  The net inferred result is that 
	their  interpretations, based on meanings that are necessarily 
	divergent from those originally embodied in the constitution, have 
	resulted in what you have termed above as questionable rulings
	and/or decisions.  Are you saying that the court SHOULD
	make questionable rulings, or do you concede that your reasoning
	leaves something to be desired?

	Granted that this does not prove that interpreting the constitution 
	according to the original intent of the authors will necessarily result
	in a superior environment WRT law and civil rights, but I personally
	suspect that it indeed would in the vast and overwhelming majority of
	cases.  It certainly would put major brakes on the Guv and what kind
	of, and how much hanky panky they could get into.

	If this nation were to pare the body of law down to perhaps 10 or
	15 laws based in functional principles rather than on particulars
	and operate on precisely those legal principles and precedents based
	on same, we would have the opportunity to give cause to be all but 
	eradicated, our current miasma of governmental, legislative, and
	judicial troubles.

	I would propose another amendment to the constitution (suggestions
	for improvements welcome, please):  All bodies of Legislation passed
	into Law by the Congress shall be immediately ruled on by the supreme
	Court for the purposes of verifying compliance with the Principles
	and Particulars set forth in this Constitution.

	I know this is perhaps far from perfect, but I think the idea that I
	am getting at here is fairly clear.  Any ideas as to strong points
	and weaknesses?
	
>What the
>Court giveth, it taketh away.  Despite all of this, you are not going to get a
>better system by rushing to amend the Constitution every time somebody disagrees
>with whatever the Court majority thinks Madison or Elbridge Gerry meant in some
>speech delivered in the 18th century.  

	 I have not heard anyone suggest this, yet.

>If you were to follow "original intent"
>to its logical conclusion, applying it consistently across the Constitution, then
>you would produce chaos in our current system, which has evolved over two centuries.

	Such as?  Even so, perhaps that reflects the fact that our "current
	system" is sufficiently no good that we might, in many cases do well
	to return to the "old system", i.e. the one that did not treat the
	people as idiot children that are incapable of wiping their own asses
	without government intervention and regulation.
>
>
>I understand that it is illegal in most (all?) states to train private armies.
>I personally think that the practice, on a small scale, smacks of vigilantism.

	Those laws are probably unconstitutional.  Besides, whos says the
	militia is PRIVATE?  Also, I don't believe there is anything in the 
	constitution that makes such a differentiation.
>
>So was the myth that they were an effective defense against the British.  It was
>the Continental regulars, backed by a professional French army and navy, that did
>the trick.  

	This is largely true, but the Minutemen took a sizable bite out of
	the British army, in nerves if nothing else, and such effects are by
	no means insignificant.

>The local police department consists of professionals, not amateurs
>who can be called to duty on a moment's notice.

	NONSENSE.  Some cops are truly professional whereas many (most?) are 
	nothing more than dangerous clowns running around with guns when they 
	have no business doing so.  I have shot with quite a few cops.  Many 
	of them are quite the marksmen, but more often I have seen people that 
	couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from ten paces.  Please don't 
	try to peddle that "cops are PROFESSIONALS (and therefore somehow 
	intrinsically more qualified than the rest of us)" nonsense because it 
	is simply not true.  

	As for "on a moments notice" I reply NONSENSE.  How many hundreds of 
	stories have I read or heard in the various media about persons who
	call the police for aid in life and death situations and the cops
	show up hours and sometimes DAYS later, long after the caller has
	been killed?  About the stories where cops simply REFUSE to "get
	involved" and look the other way during acts of violence.  I KNOW this
	is true because it happened to me in Times Square when I was 17.  Me
	and a friend of mine were surrounded by a bunch of drug dealers, got
	a .45 and a .25 shoved in our faces and robbed over the course of 10 
	minutes	all while one rotten bastard was telling us he couldn't decide 
	whether or not he would snuff us "white boys".  All the while not 
	one, but THREE NYC cops were looking me RIGHT IN THE EYE while this
	was happening.  Before the ordeal ended, two of the useless bastards
	split.  We went to the one remaining and he said "sorry, nothing I can
	do".  If you call that professional, if you think that I am obliged
	to play a form of Russian roulette by relying on people whom I have
	not the vaguest whit as to whether or not I can rely on them for
	help, you are mistaken.

	Perhaps if you were held up at gunpoint, not knowing whether or not
	the bastard will blow your damned brains all over the sidewalk 
	you'd realize that cops are next to useless for much beyond guiding
	traffic, helping old ladies across the street and aiding in emergencies
	like accidents and natural disasters.  Too often do they fail to
	live up to their obligations, sometimes out of ineptitude, sometimes
	out of apathy or cowardice, and sometimes because it is simply humanly
	impossible for them to be of use, no matter HOW capable they might be.


	-Andy V.