Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ptsfa!well!rab
From: rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: An interesting message from SECURITY-DIGEST@RUTGERS
Message-ID: <4288@well.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Oct-87 07:13:03 EST
Article-I.D.: well.4288
Posted: Sat Oct 24 07:13:03 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Oct-87 04:31:17 EST
References: <7449@reed.UUCP> <8746@utzoo.UUCP> <471@auscso.UUCP>
Reply-To: rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 44
Summary: difference between pragmatic and realistic

[Line Eater?  WHAT line ea

Steve Rice writes at length about and against various arguments which
have been put forth here essentially saying that the government does
not have the right to invade people's privacy (by listening in or
intercepting their phone calls or communications).  Steve says in
essence that since the Supreme Court has said that they DO have the
right, then they in fact have it.

This is wrongheaded, but I don't think it's really Steve's fault.

Steve's position amounts to saying that since the government has
the ability to enforce it's seizure of certain powers which in fact
it does not have under our Constitution, then we shouldn't argue with
it on these points.  This is a fine pragmatic position.

The Supreme Court has been wrong on numerous occasions, and has often
decided cases for political expediency rather than from any legitimate
reading of the Constitution.  Where these decisions have proven exceedingly
bad, they have in general been reversed.  Many others have not.

The tax protestor issue he brings up is old and complicated, and is
flawed but not for the reasons that Steve indicates.   Howevere, happily
the two issues are quite independent and seperable.  The decisions of
the Supreme Court which sanctified paper money ARE, in fact, repugnant
to the Constitution and anybody who has bothered to study the debates
of the Founders would be well aware of this.  They most determinedly
meant to "crush paper money" and the papers of the time acknowledged
this fact with great joy.

Please don't confuse the ability to exercise a power with the right
to exercise that power.  Our government is doing today, and has been
virtually from the beginning of its history, many things which it is
not authorized to do by the Constitution (and, in a few areas, is
actually doing things which are prohibited by that document).  If
most people feel that the government SHOULD be doing these things,
then they should get an Amendment passed.  Sneaking them in under
the guise of 'interpreting' the Constitution is foul play.

-- 
  Robert Bickford                 {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab
/-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
| Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President |
\-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/