From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy    (was Re: what the hell is HR 4983
Summary: Lock and Load
Date: 1 Sep 92 06:09:16 GMT
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Aug31.142812.20723@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
- Quite right.  I'd assumed you were talking "state's" rights and was
- pointing out that it said "powers not delegated to the U.S.", etc...,
- NOT "rights not delegated to the U.S.", etc...  IMHO rights can only be
- talked about in the context of individuals.

	I agree.  However, when folk use the phrase "states' rights" 
   they usually (in my experience) are talking about the powers that 
   the individual states have.  Like "pitbull" it may have no real 
   semantic meaning, but folk generally understand what is meant.  

	The problem with using the phrase "government powers" is that 
   if one tries to tell the Federales that they don't have the power 
   to do X because X is not within the powers "delegated to the United 
   States" they'll likely stick a gun in your face and do X anyway, 
   unless you happen to be a judge rendering a decision on a case. 
   At the present time, the Federales follow the political tenet that 
   political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.  Why do you think 
   that UPD is so popular these days?  After all, the guns that "King 
   George" banned from import were not the guns being used in crimes 
   in any large numbers.  The guns used in crime are either "hunting
   guns" or "police guns" - check the FBI stats if you doubt this. 

   
- >	Murder laws are a States Rights issue! 
- 
- So if you had a right to life in Texas, but not in Oklahoma, and went
- visting your in-laws in OK and got killed, too bad?  No thanks, I'd

	You would rather impose your views on folk in Oklahoma? 

	If the people of Oklahoma, as a whole, feel that homicide is 
   not a crime, why should you, as a non-resident, be able to force 
   your views on them?  I seem to recall you complaining that the 
   "religious right" was trying to force their morality on unwilling 
   folk, but you seem eager to do _the_exact_same_thing_ to those 
   hypothetical pro-murder Oklahomans we were talking about.


- rather that rights issues were decided on a Federal basis rather than a
- state by state basis.  Actually, if I recall correctly, this was one

	So, would you prefer a national anti-abortion/right-to-life
   law over allowing the residents of each state to decide? 


- WRT to the WoD, I'm interested in what you've got to say about that.
- I personally am against it (and other laws outlawing now illicit
- drugs) because of my r.t.p.

	I am opposed to the WoD (aka The War on Rights) not because  
   of any implied right to privacy, but because regulating intrastate 
   commerce of any kind (heroin, sten guns, federal drinking age) is 
   explicitly a power not delegated to the United States by the 
   Constitution.  Of course, the Constitution is ignored by the Feds 
   these days, so maybe the point is moot.  Did you ever wonder why 
   the Federales had to amend the Constitution to ban alcohol sales?  
   Why did they not need an amendment to ban cocaine?  Maybe because 
   they no longer give a rat's arse about the Constitution, as long as
   the SC will wink and pretend they didn't see the rights violation? 

	Food for thought.   


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack   |   
  kossack@qvi.com   |   Guinness and Harp and Bass ... oh my!  
  +1 713 240 2073   |