From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.society.civil-liberty] Re: Civil Rights Are Absolute
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:02:55 GMT

A repost from alt.society.civil-liberty:

From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Re:  Civil Rights Are Absolute
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:29:22 GMT


Actually, an individual has no rights except those granted by
the state.  An individual cannot even sue the state unless the
state gives him that right.  Causes of action are granted through
the state.  You say you have common law rights?  You do only 
because all states except Louisiana have adopted the common
law as part of their system of laws.

The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution because of that
basic fact (that the individual otherwise has no rights).  They
were intended to be absolute.

However, early in our history the Supreme Court set itself up as
the agency to decide what is constitutional.  Not the legislature,
elected by the people, but the courts, with lifetime job protection.
That is both good and bad...

In the last 12 years the supreme court has changed from a reasonably
moderate court to a RADICAL court.  These are not conservatives on
the court; they are radicals.  Some of the members of the court
do not believe in fundamental principles of law that virtually everyone
else believe in.

At the same time, 90% of the federal judiciary has also been appointed
by the radical 'conservatives' in Washington.  And we had an Attorney
General who did not believe that people should be innocent until
proven guilty, and who did not enforce entire chapters of the federal
code.

This Supreme Court has made it its business to almost completely
eliminate all 10 of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.  There is
nothing left in the amendment against search and seizure.  There is
little left in the freedom of speech unless you are a big corporation
wanting to terrorize those criticizing you, and so on.  

The entire federal judicial system is now an arm of the executive
branch of the government.  It is the most politicized court in
history.  And since there has been a deliberate attempt to appointment
the youngest (and most inexperienced) judges to the bench, it is
going to take a major effort to correct the situation.  This is also
not the smartest court we have ever had...

It is going to take major action to reform and depoliticize the
judiciary and return the bill of rights to having some meaning.

The Bill of Rights IS effectively dead.  It has never been considered
"absolute" -- everyone has heard the famous line about freedom of
speech not giving the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.  But
at least it essentially always protected OPINION and only lies were
not protected, and even then lies against some were not actionable.

The Federal Judiciary must reflect a range of thinking and have
an overall moderate flavor again.  What do we do about these radicals?
Impeachment?  They after all are supposed to uphold the constitution!




===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:634 alt.politics.usa.misc:140