From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Weinbergers pardon
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:32:25 GMT

In <1993Jan20.064749.12371@fuug.fi> an1168@anon.penet.fi (keynes_tart) writes:

>Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
>Subject: Re: weinbergers pardon
>Summary: 
>Expires: 
>References: <1993Jan17.175319.16595@fuug.fi> <1jhld8INNl3t@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
>Sender: 
>Reply-To: jdw5@ukc.ac.uk (J.D.Watson)
>Followup-To: 
>Distribution: 
>Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
>Keywords: 

>In article <1jhld8INNl3t@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> spencer@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael Spencer) writes:

>>The "British Constitution" consists of all the statutes ever passed
>>by Parliament.  Further, any principle thereof can be over-ruled
>>by another statute. In short it is not a constitution but an
>>abstraction derived from the general thrust of those statutes.
>>
>Yes the British constitution does consist of all the statute passed, except
>for those that have been struck off the books.  It also consists of all
>the common law that has been handed down by judgement, unless overruled.

>This makes sure that the constitution is ever evolving and can cope with
>the demands imposed upon it by modern society.

Or can be bastardized on the whim of the moment. That sword is double-edged.

>I wish the same could be said of the U.S. constitution.

Then perhaps you should read it. I am always amused by the concept that
simply because the Constitution is over 200 years old it must somehow
be obsolete. I mean really, did the Framers know about transistors? Had
they ever seen TV? So every time something new comes down the road, lets
rush out and re-write the Constitution.

If there is any fault, it lies in several administrations not having
adhered to the Constitution, or choosing to dream up new and wondrous
interpretations. Oddly enough, everyone very carefully avoids reading
or interpreting the opening sentence. Could this be because it very
cleary says who is making the following rules, why they are making
the following rules, and then points to the rules. In very clear
language it says that for the sake of justice, domestic tranquility,
common defence, the general welfare, and to secure liberty, that
we the people will establish such and such a government and we will
grant it the following powers and assign it the following respons-
ibilities AND, by implication retain all other rights and respons-
ibilities to ourselves.

Ah!, but then, I am but a simple working stiff and should mind my
manners and leave interpretation of the Constitution to the Robert
Borks of the world.


>John Watson AKA The Keynes_Tart

>The past is a different country, They do things differently there.  - PLATO

They only differ in methodology, the intentions have changed very
little :-(.

REB


>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
>Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
>and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution