Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!talon.UCS.ORST.EDU!usenet!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!learn
From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William  Vajk )
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Ruling
Message-ID: <1409@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 01:26:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.1409
References: <1234@airs.UUCP> <1991Mar27.133133.5744@oar.net>
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Lines: 32

In article <5744@oar.net> karl kleinpaste writes:

>ian@airs.uucp writes:

>   It is possible to overturn precedent.  What is very difficult to
>   overturn is laws created by congress.  How would you propose changing
>   the current system?

>Revolution comes to mind.

What most often doesn't come to mind is bloodless revolution. Several
highly successful ones dot history with lessons too soon forgotten.


>This transition of the basis of law from principle to will has the effect
>of analytically separating law from morality; there is the dissolution of
>any guarantee that fidelity to  law necessarily will  mean equal fidelity
>to principles of moral conduct.  --Sanford Levinson, UTexas School of Law

I am not so sure this Levinsonianism is applicable to the subject
circumstances if one attaches a time forward sequence to events present
and future.

Many of the discussions one presently reads cannot determine whether
the present basis of some laws (the laws of particular concern to
the electronis frontier) lies in sentient principles, or in the will
of several special interests. 

There is one concensus. Ultimately the basis for the laws we're discussing
will be principle. It is the common will :-)

Bill Vajk