Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!mintaka!bloom-beacon!mcgill-vision!quiche!utility
From: utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Kennedy wasn't the first.
Message-ID: <2012@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: 19 Jan 90 20:08:09 GMT
References: <89348.161937BROWN@NCSUVM.BITNET> <1372@becker.UUCP> <NELSON.90Jan13231318@image.clarkson.edu> <526@smcnet.UUCP>
Reply-To: utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN)
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Lines: 33

In article <526@smcnet.UUCP> byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) writes:

[lots of valid points, rebutting the foolish claim that the US
constitution was an example of "evil capitalist exploitation" or
some such nonesense]

>> Was the Constitution ratified by the people?  
>> No, it was ratified
>> by the state, using force and fraud.  
>
>Fraud? I doubt it.  For such outrageous accusations, you provide very 
>little explanation or evidence.  Just knee-jerk anti-americanism.
>
>Force? Absolutely not!  In what sense was the constitution implemented
>by "force"? That's just silly.  It was ratified by elected officials
>and was widely thought of (not just in the US either) as a declaration
>of proper governmental principles beyond any acheived before.  History
>seems to have proven them right.
	The constitution was worth the slight bending of the rules
that was undergone to pass it -- but remember that the authors,
1) created its own amending formula and retroactively applied it
for its OWN amendment (whereas the last one required unanimity, this
one did NOT)
2) applied a fairly significant amount of coercion to the hold-out
states that did NOT support the document (Rhode Island was embargoed
as I recall).

>I suppose you can come up with a better guarantee of freedom than the
>bill of rights?
	I certainly hope that one can be made which will stand the test
of time better than this one -- the biggest problem is that the bill of
rights was undercut by other parts.
		Ron