Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!crew From: crew@CS.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew) Subject: Re: Amendments In-Reply-To: ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu's message of 28 Apr 91 06:11:19 GMT Message-ID: <1991Apr28.120019.18645@neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Dept. References: <4364.2816d635@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <1991Apr26.141044.7544@alphalpha.com> <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 12:00:19 GMT Lines: 27 In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >> It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since >> once a CC is convened it's open season on the Constitution and *anything* >> can be changed. > > No, it should *really* be noted that this option is only avoided like > the plague by lawyers, ACLU-types, and other stupid liberals who want > to save us from ourselves ... > > Good heavens! The idea of the unwashed masses of the American public > having any actual say-so in how they are governed? I think a CC would > be a great idea, with real people -- not politicians, not lawyers, not what makes you think that if a CC is called that they're going to let "real people" into it? Who decides who goes to this convention anyway? Somehow I won't be surprised if it turns out to be a bunch of lawyers... > ... ACLU'ers hmmm... if it were just to be the ACLU'ers, I don't think I'd mind the carte blanche aspect of this... But that seems unlikely in today's political climate... -- Roger Crew ``I kill Optimax...'' Usenet: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!crew Internet: crew@CS.Stanford.EDU