From: sals@corwin.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:58:45 GMT

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.
> 
> >> 
> >>>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. And even if the majority of the people  
in the US agree then the constitution is not binding on those who didn't  
sign because one person signing a contract does not bind another person to  
that contract if the other person doesn't consent.
>  
> 
> >> 
> >:>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. > >> 
> >>	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?.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism