From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:36:08 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1993Jan11.035845.10826@midway.uchicago.edu> sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.005426.11142@samba.oit.unc.edu>  
>bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>> In article <10JAN199313422045@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu  
>(Mr. Grinch) writes:
>> >In article <1993Jan10.035344.26301@samba.oit.unc.edu>,  
>bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes...
>> >>In article <1993Jan9.231931.24551@midway.uchicago.edu>  
>sals@caine.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>> >
>> >>>> of Liberty to OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish  
>this
>> >>>> Constitution FOR the United States of America.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> --JMB
>> >>>
>> >
>> >Do you think people in general have the right to bind their children to 
>> >contracts,  or only in this specific case.
>> >
>> 
>> 	Yes.  People frequently inherit contracts.  I don't think the dead
>> have the right to sign involatale contracts however.  Take corporations,
>> deeds, treaties...  It's one of those things that sounds nice until you
>> actually try to have as society where a contract becomes void just  
>because
>> one of the parties involved dies.
>People do inherit contracts, but they have the right to refuse their  
>inheritance. A corportion requires that all the people who own the  
>corporation have consented to be a shareholder. Yet the constitution is  
>enforced on people who have not consented.

	The people have chosen to live in a country (a piece of land)
which is formally deeded.  This deed specifies its mythod of alteration,
its basic governing structure...  Very similar to living in an apartment
complex with a tenants board.  Which I assume you see as valid.  
	Note this tenants board also has authority over the children
living in the complex and not just the adults who explicitly signed the
lease.  
	Further note the sections I capatilized "we the people of the
united states of america", not "acting as repressentaties of the citizans
of 1787"... or "Madison, Hamilton, et. al", or anything like that.  This
is a document drafted by repressentatives, but agreed to by the people.

>> 
>> >> 
>> >>>Additionally as I wrote in  
>> >>>my post the constitution is not a binding contract because everyone  
>who is  
>> >>>bound by the constitution consented to it. 
>> >> 
>> >>	This makes no sense, would it be binding if ereryone did not
>> >>consent to it, or if only someone consented to it?  What are you  
>arguing?	
>> >
>> >It should be obvious there's a missing 'not' here.  A contract cannot
>> >be binding to people who have not consented to the contract.
>> >
>> 	Then the rest of this argument as well as others has shown this is
>> not true. The vast amjority of people in the US have consented to the
>> Constitution.  The governments in the US have....  There has been  
>consent.
>How has there been consent? Have the vast majority of people in the US  
>gotten together and signed an agreement like....We the undersigned agree  
>that the constitution is legally binding upon us to be enforced by people  
>selected from the undersigned or who have otherwise consented to rule in  
>accordance with the consititution. 

	Yes, that's what ratification meant.  You seem to place a great
emphasis on law, but give government no authority.  I ask you this, what
would be legitimate government in your view.  How could such institution
ever form.  Besides if government are illegitimate then why is law of any
importance?

>> >:>Many people opposed the  
>> >:>constitution but had it forced upon them. Incidently the convention  
>did a  
>> >:>sneaky trick in sending the constitution not to the elected state  
>> >:>legislatures to be ratified, but to special consititutional  
>conventions.  
>> >: 
>> >:	Who, every state (except Rhode Island) agreed off the cuff, and
>> >:since then every state has agreed.  Further, every citisen who is
>> >:naturalized has explicitly agreed to its contents.
>> >:
>> >
>> >You've heard of the "Civil War",  haven't you?  The citizens of
>> >the Confederate States had never consented to be bound by the
>> >Constitution in the first place,  their elected state legislators
>> >explicitly rejected it,  yet it was forced on them anyway.
>> >
>> 	No they did consent.  They latter breached the contract; or
>> alternativly withdrew from it.  In either case their was original  
>consent.
>> 
>
>No they did not consent. Did all (or even any for that matter) the members  
>of the southern states explicilty sign an agreement amongst themselves to  
>be bound by the consitution. > >> 

	Yes, when they ratified the constitution.

>> >>	Finally, the founding fathers agreed that the dead had no right to
>> >>bind the living. They explicitly addressed this with the Amendments
>> >>clause, and the right for the states to pull out (later recinded  
>during
>> >>the civil war).  It still however binds individuals.
>> >> 
>> >>--JMB
>> >
>> >This is a non-sequiter.  If the dead have no right to bind the living,
>> >why should it require a majority vote in three quarters of the
>> >state legislators for the living to overrule the dead?  Why should
>> >it require anything?  
>> >
>> 
>> 	Simple.  Look at the alternative.
>
>Does the alternative look so bad? And even if the alternative was the most  
>horrendous state imaginable does it have any bearing on the question of  
>the legal validity of the constitution?.

	Yes, it does look so bad.  Again what is legal validity without
govt.  What is law without a notion of continuity.  It is irronic that you
are using thousands of year old principles involving contract law to argue
that dead people have no right to influence the standards of the living.  

--JMB
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism