From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:21:28 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD Austin, TX

In article <21816@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.171850.1514@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>In article <21768@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>I'm the kindler, gentler, John Haugh ;-)
>>
>>[the sound of shattering glass hits the floor ....]
>>
>>NO!!! Say it so, John!  ;-)
>
>No, it's true.  I no longer have the time to tweak people's noses.


I'll alert the media  :-)


>We will be seeing a whole new form of radical kook-ism now that Al "The
>Sky is Falling!" Gore and Bill "Let's all pluck chickens for a living"
>Clinton are going to be in Washington.  There are a lot of fringe groups
>on the Left with 12 years of pent up frustrations waiting to make the
>Democratic Party look stupid as hell.  Which is fine by me ...

Not so fine with me.  Its difficult for me to say so, but
I share Rush Limbaugh's perspective on this one:  I don't
*WANT* to see Clinton/Gore "fail", in the sense that they
screw up the country.  It will give me little satisfaction.
I'd rather the country *not* get the shaft.


>I think this is being taken the wrong way, but when I say "Right" I
>don't mean "You are only allowed to do it if it is a ``Right''", but
>rather "The government cannot interfere with you doing it only if it
>is a ``Right''."
>
>For example, you have a ``Right'' to free speech.  You do not have
>the right to throw a Frisbee[tm] in the park.  This does not prevent
>you from throwing said Frisbee[tm], but at some point in the future
>the government may outlaw Frisbee[tm] throwing and then you'll find
>out what I meant.  But there is no ``Right to throw Frisbees[tm] in
>the Park.''

This is a minor point, but just because the guvmint
outlaws something, doesn't mean its not a Right.
Besides, the right to "pursuit of happiness" clearly applies here
with Frisbee[tm] brand flying disks.


>Here is the text of the 10th Amendment -
>
>	The powers not delegated to the United States by the
>	Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>	reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
>
>I don't see an "AND" in there.

But, in practice, who decides which powers are apportioned
to the people, and which to the States?
That's the problem with States Rights advocates:  in the
interest of States Rights, they have little regard for the
trampling of fundamental HUMAN rights, or even Natural
Law rights.


>>I am sympathetic to the States Rights arguments, John, but not
>>w.r.t. inalienable rights -- life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness.
>
>My point is that the Constitution is a defining document and as
>such it DEFINES what are "inalienable" rights.  You may claim that
>your "happiness" depends on being able to speed on 2222.  But that
>doesn't make it an inalienable right just because YOU say so.

Absolutely, categorically not.  If you are so inclined,
God defines those inalienable rights.  Even Deists like
Jefferson believed this.  If you are not religious, then invoke whatever
philisophical arguments you can muster to support Natural Law
or such, but in NO CASE can a document define inalienable
rights.  Besides, I didn't *sign* the bloody "contract."  :-)
Ever read Lysander Spooner?

And I NEVER, EVER said I have the inalienable right to
haul ass down 2222.  Especially because I impose risks
(i.e. costs) upon others, which is one definition of
aggression.  My rights end where yours begins, so to speak.
As my latest traffic attests, when I imposed risk upon another,
justice was swiftly served (and the Sheriff was very polite
about the whole matter, even as he continued writing my ticket :-(


>>AND common sense.  You don't *really* want to argue against this,
>>John, since you believe in it yourself!
>
>No, but the argument that is often made flies in the face of "common
>sense" and classical liberal thinking.  I suspect the flaw is that
>you see me saying something isn't a right and your blood boils.  Fact
>is, many things that aren't rights cannot be restricted by the
>government without the government finding the Constitutional authority
>to restrict that thing =or= passing a Constitutional amendment giving
>the government the missing authority.  I suspect that I would complain
>just as loudly as you if the Government suddenly restricted Frisbee[tm]
>use in parks ...

The difference is that you define Rights within Constitutional
confines.  Under that logic, a dictatorship can merely re-write
a Constitution and thereby take away my Rights.  You make
the same argument in the case of those Rights apportioned to
the (several) States.

>>Besides, scrounge yer own RS/6K  :-) 
>
>I'm working on it.  Though right now I'm getting used to the new 970
>in the lab ;-) ;-)

Well, I have access to a 930 PowerServer.  Whew!  I wonder
if it'll fit in my bedroom ....  :-)  The RS/6K's are amazing.


>>When in such a quandry, my default is to fall back on the most
>>decentralized of authority, the individual.  If you wish to
>>decentralize authority over matters moral to the States, why
>>stop there?  Why not to the individual whom is most affected?
>>(Unfortunately, it is difficult to ask the fetus, right?).
>
>The fact that there is no Constitutional authority for prohibiting
>abortion means that the power to regulate abortion falls to the
>states and if they choose not to legislate on the abortion question,
>the right falls to the people.

By this logic, then, if the Federal Government can't restrict
Rights, the States can choose to do so?  That is NOT
what the Founding Fathers had in mind.  Certainly not just
any ol' time they choose to.  And, if they did so, revolution
was a proper course of action.

In this context, the abortion argument revolves around whether or not a woman
has the absolute right over her own body.  The States may have
NO jurisdiction in this matter, IF you conclude that the right to
privacy is preeminant.  I, of course, choose to believe this is
the case.  The 10th Amendment strengthens the argument, IMHO.

The only Constitutional argument surrounding abortion is the
question of murder.  There is no other.  Even Justice Scalia
believes this to be the case.


>  Likewise, there is no Constitutional
>Amendment protecting the right to abortion, so the states are free
>to restrict abortion as they see fit.

I repeat:  just because a Right is not specified in the Constition
does not mean I do not have it, by birthright.  This is where
we fundamentally disagree.  For reference, I refer you to
Madison and Jefferson.  Not to mention Lysander Spooner.

States CAN violate your Natural Rights -- its just ethically
indefensible.  And, dare I say it, "wrong."

>  And if Congress decides to
>do something about abortion, the states' rights, as stated in the
>10th Amendment outweight those of the federal government.

Until slavery was abolished, the Constitution said nothing
about it.  The States often prohibited slavery, but often
sanctioned it.  Yet, CLEARLY, slavery violated Natural
Rights.  By your logic, it was proper for the States to either
prohibit OR not prohibit slavery.  Which, of course, is one
main reason why we fought The War of Northern Aggression  :-)
Or, if you prefer, the Civil War (with apologies to Shelby Foote).

>The Constitution is silent on the abortion issue (as well it should
>be on that and other issues, such as polygamy, drug use, etc.) so
>the issue falls to the states or the people.

Not if you respect the right to privacy, and not if you
interpret the 10th Amendment in the way it was meant to
be interpreted, rather than as license for the States to
do any damn thing they wish.

>-- 
>John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org


-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | NEW NUMBER!!