Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Important Points WAS: <none>
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:28:18 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr14.165740.29635@acsu.buffalo.edu> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.183526.10854@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>  You raise some very good points and issues that may make the libertarian
>philosophy imperfect.  I cannot address them, but as an example of how
>much damage our government has inflicted upon the mass consciousness I
>wish to respond to the following:
>
>>If we didnt have the 1st amendment, we not might be able to carry on
>>this debate, nor go to worship somewhere.  If we didnt have the 4th
>>amendment to attempt to limit police behavior you would have even more
>>illegal search and seizures.
>
>  These are not regulations.  These are god-given rights that are merely
>recognized by the Constitution.  The Constitutional Bill of Rights was
>not drawn up as a list of things that the government could not do, but
>as a list specifically outlining what it must *never* do with the rest
>of the Constitution as a list of _only_ what powers the government is ALLOWED.


I know that the COnstitution is not a regulation.  BUt it's mandates
are MEANINGLESS unless there are ways to enforce them.  THe
constitution is very short and its mandates are very vague.

Due process iis a very malleable concept.

The COnstitutions meaning has varied alot over the years.  There is
much debate over the years to get what it means.  It is not some
touchstone that will give us all the answers right away.

For instance, when it was written there were no telephones, no
wiretaps etc.  Therefore, at first COurt interpretations said
the 4th Am. did not apply to wiretaps b/c it did not come under
the purview of the 4th am.

Now they do and are subject to getting warrants (in most cases) etc.

Laws are passed to try to enforce rights among other reasons.

Often, it is up to an administrative agency to interpret the law.
Often they use regulations to do this.

It is extremely easy to say, follow the constitution, but the
problem is how does one doe it?  It takes alot of laws to make sure
its mandates are followed.  

For instance, the Supreme COurt held that illegally seized 
evidence would usually be excluded from trial. This  ensures that police
dont seize evidence w/o a warrant and then despite their violation
of someone's rights get to use it anyway.  If the police could use
the evidence then there would be no reason to have to get evidence
legally.  FOr a while, there were other attempts to give
incentives not to violate the law (like being able to sue the cop)
but it was determined that these were ineffective.

So remember laws are used to help enforce these rights -- and
regulations can help us some of the time.




>
>  I contend that The Libertarian Party although not perfect and may 
>sound radical, is based on the same ideas that founded our country
>and led to its catapult to the top of the world in prosperity.
>


I think we were top of the heep after World War Two when many 
regulatory agencies were already in place (post New Deal).

We might have been expanding in the 19th C. but our true
economic power was the 1950's.  DOnt forget that in the 19th
C.  Britain was the most industrialized country in the
world.







>
>-- 
>************************************************************************
>Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Caution : DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>I may be crazy...But it might just be a lunatic you're looking for


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.sex