From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:54:26 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <10JAN199313422045@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.035344.26301@samba.oit.unc.edu>, bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes...
>>In article <1993Jan9.231931.24551@midway.uchicago.edu> sals@caine.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>
>>>> of Liberty to OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this
>>>> Constitution FOR the United States of America.
>>>> 
>>>> --JMB
>>>
>
>Do you think people in general have the right to bind their children to 
>contracts,  or only in this specific case.
>

	Yes.  People frequently inherit contracts.  I don't think the dead
have the right to sign involatale contracts however.  Take corporations,
deeds, treaties...  It's one of those things that sounds nice until you
actually try to have as society where a contract becomes void just because
one of the parties involved dies.

>> 
>>>Additionally as I wrote in  
>>>my post the constitution is not a binding contract because everyone who is  
>>>bound by the constitution consented to it. 
>> 
>>	This makes no sense, would it be binding if ereryone did not
>>consent to it, or if only someone consented to it?  What are you arguing?	
>
>It should be obvious there's a missing 'not' here.  A contract cannot
>be binding to people who have not consented to the contract.
>
	Then the rest of this argument as well as others has shown this is
not true. The vast amjority of people in the US have consented to the
Constitution.  The governments in the US have....  There has been consent.
 

>> 
>:>Many people opposed the  
>:>constitution but had it forced upon them. Incidently the convention did a  
>:>sneaky trick in sending the constitution not to the elected state  
>:>legislatures to be ratified, but to special consititutional conventions.  
>: 
>:	Who, every state (except Rhode Island) agreed off the cuff, and
>:since then every state has agreed.  Further, every citisen who is
>:naturalized has explicitly agreed to its contents.
>:
>
>You've heard of the "Civil War",  haven't you?  The citizens of
>the Confederate States had never consented to be bound by the
>Constitution in the first place,  their elected state legislators
>explicitly rejected it,  yet it was forced on them anyway.
>
	No they did consent.  They latter breached the contract; or
alternativly withdrew from it.  In either case their was original consent.

>> 
>>	Finally, the founding fathers agreed that the dead had no right to
>>bind the living. They explicitly addressed this with the Amendments
>>clause, and the right for the states to pull out (later recinded during
>>the civil war).  It still however binds individuals.
>> 
>>--JMB
>
>This is a non-sequiter.  If the dead have no right to bind the living,
>why should it require a majority vote in three quarters of the
>state legislators for the living to overrule the dead?  Why should
>it require anything?  
>

	Simple.  Look at the alternative.

>Perhaps you mean,  "the Constitution is enforced on individuals"?
>It's true,  but irrelevant.  The supreme court has already ruled
>that U.S. law can be enforced on individuals,  whether they committed
>their crimes in U.S. territory or not,  whether they are U.S. citizens
>or not.  Quite fair and appropriate,  of course,  but I can't see
>how anyone can claim that these people are ethically bound by U.S.
>law.
>
>Mr. Grinch

	I agree that enforcing US law on non citizens is rediculous.  That
however does not apply to you, so its irrelevent.  As for outside of US
territory, except for enforcing international law again I agree.

--JMB
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism