Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!decvax!cvman!gdelong
From: gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom of hate
Message-ID: <594@cvman.UUCP>
Date: 1 May 89 19:58:55 GMT
References: <14130@gryphon.COM> <8132@chinet.chi.il.us> <1216@frog.UUCP> <8257@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: Computervision, Manchester, NH
Lines: 71

In article <8257@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes:
> In article <555@cvman.UUCP> gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes:
> >"The Congress shall make no law ...."
> >Doesn't say anything about any other government agency or individual.
> 
> The rules and regulations of government agencies are considered to be the
> law. The establishment of the agency by Congress or the Executive is 
> sufficient to put the 'force of law' behind the rules of the agency. Do
> you honestly believe there is an actual law in the United States Code
> somewhere validating every single rule of the Internal Revenue Service?
> Do you believe you could avoid the regulations of the IRS by claiming
> there is no actual law on the books?

Irrelevent.. Has nothing to do with "Freedom of Speech".  A very simple
extension of the same reasoning that applies the 2nd Ammendment to only
the Militia would say that it is much clearer that the 1st applies only
to the Congress.
 
> This could be another example of the types of illegal speech I was 
> requested to post yesterday. The right of the public and the government
                                   ^^^^^
> to an unbiased forum, conducted with decorum for the purpose of hearing
> and ajudicating grievances with each other is superior to the right of
> 'free speech' in that place and at that time. 

Where is this "right" enumerated in the Consititution?
 
> Neither does your right to free speech give you the authority to lie under
> oath at any time. And just as you may not address an officer of the court
> in a disrespectful manner, you may not address members of Congress in a
> disprepectful manner while that body is in session. Disrepect not only
> includes acts of commission (lies, laughter, mocking) but acts of omission
> as well (failure to appear when requested). That is what Contempt of
> Congress is all about, and that is a pretty heavy rap also.

Gee, that seems to impinge on my 1st Ammendment rights, I think I'll
call the ACLU.    8-)

> Patrick Townson 

Don't take this as more than it's meant.  It's really just a restatement
of a quote oft attributed to Will Rogers, "No man's liberty is safe
while the Congress is in session."

But NOW, onto soapbox:

    0 ~~~~
   /|\ 
    |   
   / \
 |-----|
 |soap |
 |_____|

I really think the Consititution and its Ammendments mean "exactly" what
they say.  And if we don't like it we shouldn't use the argument of
changes in society to justify a "more modern interpretation".  I don't
belive English to English is "interpretation".  I think that if people
want the Consititution to say something else they should follow the
procedures outlined for ammending.  This bull of the courts making
law by "interpretation" is just that... BULL.  IMHO a significant
number of SC rulings violate the concept of separation of powers and
are, on their face, unconstitutional.  (As I feel are many of the laws
passed by the Congress under the "Commerce" provision.)  8-{


-- 
  _____ 
 /  \    /   Gary A. Delong, N1BIP   "I am the NRA."  gdelong@cvman.prime.com
 |   \  /    COMPUTERVISION Division                  {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong
 \____\/     Prime Computer, Inc.                     (603) 622-1260 x 261