From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:17:48 GMT

	My apologies for taking so long to make a response -- it's been a
rather hectic week.

In <1992Jul19.173448.1333@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

>In article <viking.711523535@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu
>(Dan Sorenson) writes:

>|>	That one of the people involved in the act was a slave in no way
>|>makes it a rape.  Consent is the issue here, not the social status
>|>and
>|>freedom of the people involved.  I don't call you a bigot -- I think
>|>slavery a crime too, but at what stage do individuals take over for
>|>the
>|>labels you are so quick to ascribe meaning to?  Slave?  What happens
>|>if
>|>it is an indentured servant?  How about a person over the age of
>|>consent
>|>and under the age of majority?  How about a pet? 

>Last time I looked the law had very stiff penalties for the latter case
>and outlawed indentured status. Sex with a minor or mental defective
>merits life and buggery 30 odd years.

	Yes, and these laws already exist, but base the penalties on the
differing age or mental condition of the subject.  Nowhere is consent
mentioned, and that's the point of my argument.  A slave may be an adult
perfectly capable of giving consent, or of not giving it.  The laws you
cite above assume that consent can not be given.  This is wrong.  Take
it from a man who was propositioned by a 15 year-old, consent can be
given at any age (I refused, BTW).  Slavery is a social condition that in
no way is reflected in the laws you cite.  I pointed out the conditions
to show that there are other means besides slavery that might have a
"master" over a "subject" but which are not slavery.  In other words,
the law makes the same mistake in that it ascribes age where you ascribe
social standing to mean consent cannot be given.  Here I disagree, though
I must admit I do find the idea somewhat repulsive.

>You still have not adressed how consent could be expressed. If you are
>not allowed to say no then no method of saying yes has any meaning.

	You assume a slave cannot say "No."  I say this is still overly
simplistic and that this is not always the case.  There are other
cultures, notably the old Norse, who gave many rights to slaves, and this
was one of them as I remember.  Thus, the notion has proven failed in one
instance, and thus perhaps is wrong in individual instances.  Maybe one
slave-owner raped his slaves, but not all can be said to have done it by
virtue of just being slave-owners.  This was my original annoyance.

>|>	There is a lot to be said for a mobile society.  The only thing I
>|>recall the constitution using as a social classification was the ownership
>|>of land, which was hardly difficult to get in those days. 

>Yes, you simply stole it off the native Indians.

	Which, of course, makes no difference here.  The point is that those
who elected the founders were in favor of mercantilism and thus it was
represented.  Any state is free to institute any other form of economic
plan, so long as it doesn't interfere with interstate commerce, and the
Constitution can be amended should a majority wish it so.  That there is
little calling for any other sort of economic system just shows that most
are willing to keep the present system, which is hardly a flaw.

>The point still remains that locking policy into the constitution has
>meant that methods have had to be found to circumvent the constitution.
>The problem is that the political process is now used to circumventing
>the constitution, because the bill of rights is a part of the
>constitution people are now used to the circumvention of the bill of
>rights.

	This bears poorly on the elected, not the Constitution.  If
the policy wasn't locked in, I don't believe it would change a thing.

>It does not matter if the powers such as the right to declare war are
>effectively traded between Congress and the President as the changing
>world makes the constitutional requirements obsolete. However this
>inevitable exchange should be held separate from the Bill of rights wich
>should be imutable, except to the extent that the citizen be given more
>rights and the government less.

	Whoa!  I agree here!  As a matter of fact, so does the document
you cite.  The amendments, such as the bill of rights, supercede the
stipulations in the Constitution.

>Tying the Bill of rights to the constitution was a good move when
>constitutions were more stable than governmental perceptions of the
>rights of man. However the effect has been to stagnate the constitution
>and prevent necessary reforms.

	I still don't get the "stagnation" reference, and as a sort of
conservative person don't see where "stagnation" need be inherently wrong
when it comes to defining the rules of governing.  Perhaps you could
explain your reasoning here a bit more?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal