Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: YOU ARE LOSING YOUR FREEDOMS
Message-ID: <1898@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 24-Jan-86 09:16:43 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1898
Posted: Fri Jan 24 09:16:43 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Jan-86 04:52:47 EST
References: <309@gargoyle.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 32

> >How about a Constitutional amendment that requires a 90% vote in
> >Congress to enact a law, and a 51% vote to repeal it?

> Thought experiment:  What would have happened in the US if the
> Constitution had contained such a provision from the beginning?  What
> bills passed both houses by a nine-tenths majority (or even a
> three-fourths majority)?  What would things now be like in the US if
> only these bills had been enacted?  [RICHARD CARNES]
	
[There follows a long quotation from John Locke to the effect that
 where there is no law there is no freedom.]

I agree with Mr. Carnes that a 90% majority requirement for the 
passage of laws is not a good idea.  I agree with Locke that we
need laws (if only to keep lawyers from starving :-) ).  And I
emphatically agree with Mr. Carnes that it's a good thing the
Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers rather than by
technoid network types.

HOWEVER:  Most laws passed in the past 31 years are not confined
to the admirable purpose of protecting the weak from the strong.
Most recent laws either restrict people's freedom or spend their
money.  And many of them do both simultaneously!  I can't believe
that that is what Mr. Locke or the Founding Fathers had in mind.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
					(matt@amsaa.ARPA)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


TRUTH     JUSTICE      FREEDOM      YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY