Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Ruining a criminal's night (personal defense)
Message-ID: <1340052@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 00:04:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1340052
Posted: Fri May  3 00:04:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 07:22:39 EDT
References: <358@idis.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 38

>/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) /  2:31 pm  Apr 30, 1985 */

>From Michael Sykora, the distinguished expert in constitutional law:
>>That the Supreme Court ruled [gun control] constitutional is not
>>evidence that it is in fact constitutional.  

>How come we never seem to get any arguments, but only assertions,
>from those who believe that gun control is unconstitutional?  If you
>believe that gun control violates the Second Amendment, kindly
>provide us with your reasoning.  Make sure you provide rebuttals to
>the arguments advanced by the USSC, other courts, and the numerous
>experts in constitutional law who dispute your interpretation of the
>Second Amendment.  

As is apparent from the statement of mine which you quoted [see above],
I did not make any statement regarding my beliefs on the consitutionality
of gun control laws.  Moreover, my lack of distinguished status in law
does not constitute a refutation of this statement.

>>Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that a state-sponsored public
>>religious display (in, I believe Rhode Island) was not
>>unconstitutional, yet any idiot can see that it violates the
>>establishment clause.

>Ah, yes, here is a powerful argument that had escaped me:  "Any idiot
>can see it."  This principle that any idiot can understand
>constitutional law will greatly simplify the interpretation and
>application of the Constitution in the future.  (It will also
>simplify other subjects, such as physics; e.g., any idiot can see
>that quantum electrodynamics violates common sense.)
>
>Richard Carnes

The point is that you needn't be an "expert" in law, but rather just
moderately competent in logic.  Law and legal decision-making does not
necessarily have anything to do with logic.

					Michael Sykora