From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Needed: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Civil Forfeiture!
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:10:46 GMT
Organization: Cores 'R Us

In article <1992Apr6.133106.28934@unx.sas.com> sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.171207.11954@eskimo.celestial.com>, kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417) writes:
>|In article <1992Mar31.142837.13303@unx.sas.com> sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:

[...]

>|The problem is that no matter how the Constitution is tinkered and fine-tuned,
>|lawyers will comb it with a fine-tooth comb looking for the right combination
>|of words which will make it look like the Constitution is *not* being violated
>|but *will* permit the powers-that-be to do what they want to do.

[...]

>Naive as I know this sounds, I think the framers of the Constitution
>wrote it hoping to create a governmental system that would preserve
>their revolutionary ideals without the need for further violent
>revolutions every few decades.  I don't think they cynically tried to
>sprinkle it with loopholes for later generations of sleazy lawyers
>and demagogues to exploit.

That's what some of `em *were*; they saw no reason why the loopholes
shouldn't be exploited immediately, during their lifetime.  Why wait
for posterity to do it?

[...]

>|>Wait, make that two.  The 5th Amendment, in part:
>|>
>|>   . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
>|
>|Note qualifier "just" here, not that it's needed; it just cuts lawyers and
>|judges some slack.  People whose property is forfeited via "in rem" seizures

[...]

>Note what this would look like without the qualifier "just," and tell me
>you like it better.

No great difference that I can see, except that it gives the word-fiddlers
a little headroom.

[...]

>Well, gosh, Kurt!   Some folks said they wanted a new amendment to fix
>a problem.  I said there are existing amendments that address the very
>problem they're talking about, and the appropriate fix is to insist that
>those amendments be respected.  Now you tell me that it's all simply
>hopeless.   I guess the only sensible thing to do is draw a hot bath,
>get in it, and slash our wrists.  Or did you have something constructive
>to suggest?

Well, some fundamental changes in worldview, for one.  One such change might
be ceasing to regard the world and everything "not-I" as something to be
controlled, dominated, or otherwise bent into conformity.

One such example is the anti-abortionist forces in WA state. Initiative 120,
legalizing Roe v. Wade, just barely passed by less that 1 % last fall.
The anti-abortionists are already gearing up to try to defeat this.
Rather than accept that some people don't believe what they do and want to
conduct their lives differently, they, by God, aren't going to do that.
They will keep fighting until they get their way, by hook or by crook.

The point I was trying to make is that the Bill of Rights is only a travesty
unless we take it *seriously*, and not just a scratching post for lawyers
(love those mixed metaphors!).  This means that the arbiters, judges, etc.
that society depends on to resolve the conundrums that arise in the course
of human interaction, have to be big enough to rise above their own self-
interests, and those of their profession.  Any evidence that any of the
so-called Framers met this criterion is pretty patchy and inconsistent at best.
Even that exemplar of democracy, Thomas Jefferson was a little dodgy in spots
(although better than most).

Liberty (and anarchy) means putting up with things you don't like.  Lawyers
and other authoritarian types all want to have things their way, and they
don't care how they do it.

kurt@grotatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3442 talk.politics.misc:18157 talk.politics.drugs:2916