abortion and breast cancer
Travis Kidd
> said:
> > > If there are credible scientific studies, cite them. If there is
> > > evidence, then let the information on the connection be desemenated.
> > You are a professor, right? You should learn how to spell! Not only
> > is this word spelled wrong, but the connotations one can draw from the
> > way you spelled it are quite interesting.
> Dissemenated never looks right to me. Oh well. Think of it. Had she
> been de-semenated she wouldn't have needed the abortion and had gotten
> breast cancer. See, I came up with a good solution.
Ohhhh.....OK :)
Still, I think it's "disseminated," although I admit I'm not sure.
> > > This, however, is still all part of making choices. This is the worst
> > > argument for not allowing abortion I have ever heard. You know, eating
> > > junk food increases the risk of heart attack. Should we ban junk food?
> > I don't know, Ira...what does your economic analysis say?
> My economic analysis may argue that junk food should be tax, because of
> its external costs (increasing health care costs), but banning is not an
> economic solution.
OK...anyhow, I think allowing junk food and allowing abortion are both
policy questions for the state legislature. Neither one is a right.
> Ira S. Saltz
-Travis
Ira Saltz
> > If there are credible scientific studies, cite them. If there is
> > evidence, then let the information on the connection be desemenated.
> You are a professor, right? You should learn how to spell! Not only
> is this word spelled wrong, but the connotations one can draw from the
> way you spelled it are quite interesting.
>
Dissemenated never looks right to me. Oh well. Think of it. Had she
been de-semenated she wouldn't have needed the abortion and had gotten
breast cancer. See, I came up with a good solution.
> > This, however, is still all part of making choices. This is the worst
> > argument for not allowing abortion I have ever heard. You know, eating
> > junk food increases the risk of heart attack. Should we ban junk food?
>
> I don't know, Ira...what does your economic analysis say?
My economic analysis may argue that junk food should be tax, because of
its external costs (increasing health care costs), but banning is not an
economic solution.
>
> > Ira S. Saltz
> -Travis
------------------------------------------------
Ira S. Saltz
Associate Professor of Economics
http://www.valdosta.peachnet.edu/~isaltz
"A waist is a terrible thing to mind."-Terry Forster.
Jeff Quinton
The word is disseminated
Jeff
P. Jefferson Quinton
jqui...@cs1.presby.edu
http://cs1.presby.edu/~jquinton
-------------------------------------------
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
Travis Kidd
> For Travis and Ira:
> The word is disseminated
> Jeff
-Travis
rwma...@cc10ss.unity.ncsu.edu
your state legislature should regulate what you eat ? what hypocrisy
from your 'smaller government' view. perhaps your abortion obsession
has led you into unthought-out knee-jerk views yet once again ?
>OK...anyhow, I think allowing junk food and allowing abortion are both
>policy questions for the state legislature. Neither one is a right.
>
>> Ira S. Saltz
>-Travis
- r
Travis Kidd
d:
> Allowing junk food is a policy question for the state legislature? ha!
Is the truth funny? Whatever.
> I find it interesting that many people who are total adherents to the 10th
> amendment totally disregard the other amendments.
How's that?
> Doesn't the ninth amendment state that even rights not enumerated in the
> constitution are not to be disparaged?
Yes it does. (By the way, do you know what "disparage" means?)
> Why would the 10th amendment take precedence over the 9th, or any other
> amendment, which to me guarantee privacy?
For the same reason the 21st takes precedence over the 18th. And the
4th guarantees privacy, not the 9th.
> This is idiotic. No government has any right to tell you what you can eat,
> who you can sleep with/love, or what you can do with your life, so long as
> you don't infringe upon the rights of others.
The government can't tell you what you can eat, but it certainly can
tell you what you can buy or sell. It can't tell you whom you can
sleep with, but it can tell you whom you can have sex with, as long
as spouses are included. It can't tell you whom you can love, but
can to some extent tell you what you can do with your life (e.g., you
you can't be a drug dealer).
> ANd that extends to food and junk food, as much as it extends to abortion.
Agreed.
> Russ
-Travis
Travis Kidd
> travis, this is beyond your normal level of pure ditziness. so you think
> your state legislature should regulate what you eat ? what hypocrisy
> from your 'smaller government' view. perhaps your abortion obsession
> has led you into unthought-out knee-jerk views yet once again ?
think I did, although I'd be gladly shown to be wrong.
> - r
-Travis
Russell Klein
>travis, this is beyond your normal level of pure ditziness. so you think
>your state legislature should regulate what you eat ? what hypocrisy
>from your 'smaller government' view. perhaps your abortion obsession
>has led you into unthought-out knee-jerk views yet once again ?
>
>>OK...anyhow, I think allowing junk food and allowing abortion are both
>>policy questions for the state legislature. Neither one is a right.
Ahhh...I Must've missed this one, since I usually gloss over any post that
has abortion or Armenia/Turkey/Argic written in the subject line X-)
Allowing junk food is a policy question for the state legislature? ha!
I find it interesting that many people who are total adherents to the 10th
amendment totally disregard the other amendments.
Doesn't the ninth amendment state that even rights not enumerated in the
constitution are not to be disparaged?
Why would the 10th amendment take precedence over the 9th, or any other
amendment, which to me guarantee privacy?
This is idiotic. No government has any right to tell you what you can eat,
who you can sleep with/love, or what you can do with your life, so long as
you don't infringe upon the rights of others.
ANd that extends to food and junk food, as much as it extends to abortion.
>>
>>> Ira S. Saltz
>>-Travis
>
>- r
Russ
"Meanwhile the collective subconscious of Western Culture has come to see
the eventual arrival of thenew millennium as some kind of 'turning point'; a
time of change for the better, a time and change that can be relied upon to
make things *so* new that all the problems of the last few decades will
vanish- the future will finally arrive! Yippee! Lets- oh, this broken window
still needs fixing..."
(Dick Lucas - Citizen Fish's Millenia Madness inlay cards)
Russell Klein
>On Wed, 20 Mar 1996 15:31:36 +0000 Russell Klein
<klei...@ait.fredonia.edu> sai
>d:
>> Allowing junk food is a policy question for the state legislature? ha!
>Is the truth funny? Whatever.
Please explain to me how this is the case, that state legislatures may
"allow" junk food???
The truth would be funny, if I were to be presented with some of it X-)
>> I find it interesting that many people who are total adherents to the 10th
>> amendment totally disregard the other amendments.
>How's that?
By claiming that things are the power of the state, based on the 10th
amendment, and then disregarding other amendments that demand privacy and
such...
>> Doesn't the ninth amendment state that even rights not enumerated in the
>> constitution are not to be disparaged?
>Yes it does. (By the way, do you know what "disparage" means?)
Of course I do. Do you? Here...let me end this little "do you even know
what this word means" game by printing what it means from a reputable source:
Blacks Law Dictionary: Disparage. To connect unequally; to match
unsuitably. To discredit one's person or propery.
and from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Disparage. TO speak of as unimportant or inferior. Belittle
>> Why would the 10th amendment take precedence over the 9th, or any other
>> amendment, which to me guarantee privacy?
>For the same reason the 21st takes precedence over the 18th. And the
This is obsurd and clearly ridiculous. The 21st repeals the 18th amendment.
The 10th doesn't repeal the 9th. You can't even use dating, because they
were both passed as part of the same package! You are saying that the
numerical ordering actually plays a role in which ones take precedence, even
if they aren't contradictory? Well thats nice. I personally tend to think
that the lower number should have more significance, and therefore the 9th
usurps the 10th, since the 10th doesn't strike out the 9th, and neither does
any other amendment.
Under your reasoning, powers to the state would override things like free
speech and privacy.
That simply can't be the case. Great...lets get rid of the one big
domineering federal government and replace it with a bunch of smaller
wannabe domineering governments.
Do you believe in Posse Commitatus?
>4th guarantees privacy, not the 9th.
No kidding. I never said that the 9th was the one that actually guarantees
privacy. I do know it is the fourth amendment, thank you.
>> This is idiotic. No government has any right to tell you what you can eat,
>> who you can sleep with/love, or what you can do with your life, so long as
>> you don't infringe upon the rights of others.
>The government can't tell you what you can eat, but it certainly can
>tell you what you can buy or sell. It can't tell you whom you can
While the government claims it has this right, I don't believe it should be
engaged in this arena. Especially when such sales aren't harmful to other
people's rights.
>sleep with, but it can tell you whom you can have sex with, as long
You don't seriously believe this, do you? By what authority do you believe
they can do this?
The court rulings in favor of this have nothing to do with
constitutionality, and every thing to do with moral decision making, which
is none of their business.
>as spouses are included. It can't tell you whom you can love, but
>can to some extent tell you what you can do with your life (e.g., you
>you can't be a drug dealer).
>
>> ANd that extends to food and junk food, as much as it extends to abortion.
>Agreed.
>
>> Russ
>-Travis
Russ
"A choice of three for democracy - and they're all parasites!" (Subhumans)
Travis Kidd
d:
> >> Allowing junk food is a policy question for the state legislature? ha!
> >Is the truth funny? Whatever.
> Please explain to me how this is the case, that state legislatures may
> "allow" junk food???
> >> I find it interesting that many people who are total adherents to the 10th
> >> amendment totally disregard the other amendments.
> >How's that?
> By claiming that things are the power of the state, based on the 10th
> amendment, and then disregarding other amendments that demand privacy and
> such...
I don't disregard the 4th or the 14th Amendments, or any other amend-
ments, except the 18th.
> >> Doesn't the ninth amendment state that even rights not enumerated in the
> >> constitution are not to be disparaged?
> >Yes it does. (By the way, do you know what "disparage" means?)
> Of course I do. Do you? Here...let me end this little "do you even know
> what this word means" game by printing what it means from a reputable source:
Well gee, if I wanted you to look it up in a dictionary, I would have
asked you to.
> >> Why would the 10th amendment take precedence over the 9th, or any other
> >> amendment, which to me guarantee privacy?
> >For the same reason the 21st takes precedence over the 18th. And the
> This is obsurd and clearly ridiculous. The 21st repeals the 18th amendment.
Words that begin with ob: oboe, obituary, obsurd....
> The 10th doesn't repeal the 9th. You can't even use dating, because they
> were both passed as part of the same package! You are saying that the
No they weren't. If they were, they'd be part of the same amendment.
> numerical ordering actually plays a role in which ones take precedence, even
> if they aren't contradictory? Well thats nice. I personally tend to think
> that the lower number should have more significance, and therefore the 9th
> usurps the 10th, since the 10th doesn't strike out the 9th, and neither does
> any other amendment.
Huh? Doesn't the 1st strike out the 9th? And the 18th the 21st?
> Under your reasoning, powers to the state would override things like free
> speech and privacy.
No they wouldn't. Where do you get that idea?
> That simply can't be the case. Great...lets get rid of the one big
> domineering federal government and replace it with a bunch of smaller
> wannabe domineering governments.
No...don't get rid of the federal government, just confine it to
the powers that it constitutionally possesses. And return the
powers that the constitution reserves to the states to the states.
> Do you believe in Posse Commitatus?
I don't know. What is it?
> >4th guarantees privacy, not the 9th.
> No kidding. I never said that the 9th was the one that actually guarantees
> privacy. I do know it is the fourth amendment, thank you.
Huh? I believe you said it "demands" privacy....is that not the
same thing?
> >The government can't tell you what you can eat, but it certainly can
> >tell you what you can buy or sell. It can't tell you whom you can
> While the government claims it has this right, I don't believe it should be
> engaged in this arena. Especially when such sales aren't harmful to other
> people's rights.
Well if you don't believe it should be engaged in this arena, then
by all means contact your state legislative delegation and tell them.
But that has nothing to do with whether or not government has the right
(or power, or whatever).
> >sleep with, but it can tell you whom you can have sex with, as long
> You don't seriously believe this, do you? By what authority do you believe
> they can do this?
It's called "sovereignty."
> The court rulings in favor of this have nothing to do with
> constitutionality, and every thing to do with moral decision making, which
> is none of their business.
Well...there's legal idealism, and legal realism. Legal idealism
says that just because a court says it's so doesn't mean it's so.
Legal realism says that whatever a court says goes. You're a legal
idealist, it seems, and so am I. I agree with what you say here.
However, I tolerate (if not accept) legal realism as necessary to
the function of law in society.
In other words, I accept a court's decision as law, while reserving
the right to disagree with the decision.
> Russ
-Travis
Russell Klein
>On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 16:21:41 +0000 Russell Klein
<klei...@ait.fredonia.edu> sai
>d:
>> >> Allowing junk food is a policy question for the state legislature? ha!
>> >Is the truth funny? Whatever.
>> Please explain to me how this is the case, that state legislatures may
>> "allow" junk food???
>By not forbidding it.
how very generous of them!
By what right would they have to forbid it though?
>
>> >> I find it interesting that many people who are total adherents to the 10th
>> >> amendment totally disregard the other amendments.
>> >How's that?
>> By claiming that things are the power of the state, based on the 10th
>> amendment, and then disregarding other amendments that demand privacy and
>> such...
>I don't disregard the 4th or the 14th Amendments, or any other amend-
>ments, except the 18th.
Well, this is a good thing. Then how is it that a state can tell you who
you may have sex with, yet not violate the right to privacy?
>> >> Doesn't the ninth amendment state that even rights not enumerated in the
>> >> constitution are not to be disparaged?
>> >Yes it does. (By the way, do you know what "disparage" means?)
>> Of course I do. Do you? Here...let me end this little "do you even know
>> what this word means" game by printing what it means from a reputable source:
>Well gee, if I wanted you to look it up in a dictionary, I would have
>asked you to.
>
>> >> Why would the 10th amendment take precedence over the 9th, or any other
>> >> amendment, which to me guarantee privacy?
>> >For the same reason the 21st takes precedence over the 18th. And the
>> This is obsurd and clearly ridiculous. The 21st repeals the 18th amendment.
>Words that begin with ob: oboe, obituary, obsurd....
Ahhh....a spelling mistake. Obviously my argument must be flawed
how absurd X-)
>> The 10th doesn't repeal the 9th. You can't even use dating, because they
>> were both passed as part of the same package! You are saying that the
>No they weren't. If they were, they'd be part of the same amendment.
They were all passed in 1791. Now it may be the case that they were, or
weren't passed all at the exact same time. I don't know if this is exactly
the case. but the "Bill of Rights" includes all 10 amendments, so
therefore, it is obvious that it is considered a package deal, until such
time that one or more of them get repealed.
>> numerical ordering actually plays a role in which ones take precedence, even
>> if they aren't contradictory? Well thats nice. I personally tend to think
>> that the lower number should have more significance, and therefore the 9th
>> usurps the 10th, since the 10th doesn't strike out the 9th, and neither does
>> any other amendment.
>Huh? Doesn't the 1st strike out the 9th? And the 18th the 21st?
I was being sarcastic. In that event, it would be impossible to repeal any
amendment, and we still haven't quite repealed the 16th yet.
>> Under your reasoning, powers to the state would override things like free
>> speech and privacy.
>No they wouldn't. Where do you get that idea?
well, you have already said that the state can tell you who you may have sex
with, which to me seems to be saying that the state can interfere with your
privacy.
>> That simply can't be the case. Great...lets get rid of the one big
>> domineering federal government and replace it with a bunch of smaller
>> wannabe domineering governments.
>No...don't get rid of the federal government, just confine it to
>the powers that it constitutionally possesses. And return the
>powers that the constitution reserves to the states to the states.
I want to restrict the powers of the federal government, but not in exchange
for giving the states a huge chunk of that power. We need less government
on all levels.
>> Do you believe in Posse Commitatus?
>I don't know. What is it?
Stands for "power to the county" or "power of the county" or something like
that. If I am not mistaken, it gave the country sheriff power to mobilize
all able bodied adults over 15 (?) to handle civil problems. I am also told
that it was passed to keep federal troops from performing tasks that can be
performed by local people (ie law enforcement). Some people take it to mean
litterally that they needn't obey anyone at a higher level than the county
level...some of these people, from what I remember learning, have resorted
to violence. I've no doubt that many of the people in citizen's militias
are adherents to a more radical belief in Posse Commitatus.
>> >4th guarantees privacy, not the 9th.
>> No kidding. I never said that the 9th was the one that actually guarantees
>> privacy. I do know it is the fourth amendment, thank you.
>Huh? I believe you said it "demands" privacy....is that not the
>same thing?
I said the 9th and other amedments demand privacy. I consider the 9th
amendment part of what allows for the right to privacy, since I feel it
covers any possible loopholes in the 4th that people might dream up.
>
>> >The government can't tell you what you can eat, but it certainly can
>> >tell you what you can buy or sell. It can't tell you whom you can
>> While the government claims it has this right, I don't believe it should be
>> engaged in this arena. Especially when such sales aren't harmful to other
>> people's rights.
>Well if you don't believe it should be engaged in this arena, then
>by all means contact your state legislative delegation and tell them.
>But that has nothing to do with whether or not government has the right
>(or power, or whatever).
>
>> >sleep with, but it can tell you whom you can have sex with, as long
>> You don't seriously believe this, do you? By what authority do you believe
>> they can do this?
>It's called "sovereignty."
Sovereignty over what? Explain yourself here, please...If you mean
sovereignty, as in over the land, then this right can be claimed over
virtually anything, and we might as well crown our governors as petty kings.
Under the images in my head, I see a vision of you not believing that we
actually own our lives.
Do you favor keeping suicide illegal too?
>> The court rulings in favor of this have nothing to do with
>> constitutionality, and every thing to do with moral decision making, which
>> is none of their business.
>Well...there's legal idealism, and legal realism. Legal idealism
>says that just because a court says it's so doesn't mean it's so.
>Legal realism says that whatever a court says goes. You're a legal
>idealist, it seems, and so am I. I agree with what you say here.
>However, I tolerate (if not accept) legal realism as necessary to
>the function of law in society.
I agree too, that it is neccesary to the function of a lawful society. We
have to follow laws and rulings, or else we risk going to jail or whatever,
and we also risk breakdown of society if taken far enough.
>In other words, I accept a court's decision as law, while reserving
>the right to disagree with the decision.
Yes, except I also believe that what I believe to be bad decisions need to
be changed, and people need to work to change them, if they agree.
Travis Kidd
d:
> >> Please explain to me how this is the case, that state legislatures may
> >> "allow" junk food???
> >By not forbidding it.
> how very generous of them!
> By what right would they have to forbid it though?
forbids it. (I'm assuming that nothing in the state constitution
forbids it as well.)
> >I don't disregard the 4th or the 14th Amendments, or any other amend-
> >ments, except the 18th.
> Well, this is a good thing. Then how is it that a state can tell you who
> you may have sex with, yet not violate the right to privacy?
The right to privacy doesn't mean that you have a right to do whatever
you want so long as it's done in private. The right to privacy means
that government can't bust into your home without probable cause that
a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be com-
mitted.
> >> >> Why would the 10th amendment take precedence over the 9th, or any other
> >> >> amendment, which to me guarantee privacy?
> >> >For the same reason the 21st takes precedence over the 18th. And the
> >> This is obsurd and clearly ridiculous. The 21st repeals the 18th amendment
.
> >Words that begin with ob: oboe, obituary, obsurd....
> Ahhh....a spelling mistake. Obviously my argument must be flawed
Obviously...there's another one :-)
> how absurd X-)
Much better :)
> >> The 10th doesn't repeal the 9th. You can't even use dating, because they
> >> were both passed as part of the same package! You are saying that the
> >No they weren't. If they were, they'd be part of the same amendment.
> They were all passed in 1791. Now it may be the case that they were, or
> weren't passed all at the exact same time. I don't know if this is exactly
> the case. but the "Bill of Rights" includes all 10 amendments, so
> therefore, it is obvious that it is considered a package deal, until such
> time that one or more of them get repealed.
No, it's not a package deal. Legally, there is no such thing as the
"Bill of Rights." The term is used to refer to the first 10 amendments,
but in actuality there is nothing special about those amendments, es-
pecially nothing that would have them be considered as one package.
Elsewise, as I said, they would be parts of one amendment.
> >Huh? Doesn't the 1st strike out the 9th? And the 18th the 21st?
> I was being sarcastic. In that event, it would be impossible to repeal any
> amendment, and we still haven't quite repealed the 16th yet.
OK...then my argument still stands...the 10th overrides the 9th, so
far as they are inconsistent.
> >> Under your reasoning, powers to the state would override things like free
> >> speech and privacy.
> >No they wouldn't. Where do you get that idea?
> well, you have already said that the state can tell you who you may have sex
> with, which to me seems to be saying that the state can interfere with your
> privacy.
Well, again, the state can't interfere with your privacy without pro-
bable cause.
> >No...don't get rid of the federal government, just confine it to
> >the powers that it constitutionally possesses. And return the
> >powers that the constitution reserves to the states to the states.
> I want to restrict the powers of the federal government, but not in exchange
> for giving the states a huge chunk of that power. We need less government
> on all levels.
Well, I don't know if I agree with you here or not. But regardless,
the Constitution, as long as it is what it is, should be followed.
> >> Do you believe in Posse Commitatus?
> >I don't know. What is it?
(explanation deleted)
No...I don't. Counties and cities are not sovereign. This is precise-
ly why I believe that Colorado's Amendment 2 is constitutional.
> >> >4th guarantees privacy, not the 9th.
> >> No kidding. I never said that the 9th was the one that actually guarantees
> >> privacy. I do know it is the fourth amendment, thank you.
> >Huh? I believe you said it "demands" privacy....is that not the
> >same thing?
> I said the 9th and other amedments demand privacy. I consider the 9th
> amendment part of what allows for the right to privacy, since I feel it
> covers any possible loopholes in the 4th that people might dream up.
Oh OK I understand.
> >> >sleep with, but it can tell you whom you can have sex with, as long
> >> You don't seriously believe this, do you? By what authority do you believe
> >> they can do this?
> >It's called "sovereignty."
> Sovereignty over what? Explain yourself here, please...If you mean
> sovereignty, as in over the land, then this right can be claimed over
> virtually anything, and we might as well crown our governors as petty kings.
No....that's the great thing about America. The *people* are sovereign,
not governors. Don't forget that *we* are the ones who elect our
legislators. Whatever laws they pass, are passed with our blessing.
(Technically, of course, this isn't quite the case, but it's close.
I would like to see more popular participation in government, now that
it is technologically feasible.) So it's not like we live under a
ruthless dictator. Even the Constitution guarantees each state a
"republican form of government." (So if your governor is a Democrat,
you can ask the Army to depose him :-)
> Under the images in my head, I see a vision of you not believing that we
> actually own our lives.
Well....we own our lives, I suppose. But we also are members of so-
ciety, and parties to the social contract.
> Do you favor keeping suicide illegal too?
Yes, except for people who are terminally ill and living in a vege-
tative state or unbearable pain. Note that this has nothing to do
with whether or not terminally ill people, or anybody else, has a
right to die. (Of course, no successful commission of the crime has
ever been punished.)
> I agree too, that it is neccesary to the function of a lawful society. We
> have to follow laws and rulings, or else we risk going to jail or whatever,
> and we also risk breakdown of society if taken far enough.
> >In other words, I accept a court's decision as law, while reserving
> >the right to disagree with the decision.
> Yes, except I also believe that what I believe to be bad decisions need to
> be changed, and people need to work to change them, if they agree.
I agree that bad decisions need to be changed. I'm not an activist,
though, so it's not like I pick a Supreme Court "bad decision du jour"
and go to Washington and protest against it.
Oh well...time to go check on the scrubbing bubbles that work hard so
I don't have to.
> Russ
-Travis
Russell Klein
>On Fri, 22 Mar 1996 01:48:58 +0000 Russell Klein
<klei...@ait.fredonia.edu> sai
>d:
>> >> Please explain to me how this is the case, that state legislatures may
>> >> "allow" junk food???
>> >By not forbidding it.
>> how very generous of them!
>> By what right would they have to forbid it though?
>By sovereignty, and by the fact that nothing in the Constitution
>forbids it. (I'm assuming that nothing in the state constitution
>forbids it as well.)
Of course though, I don't see anything in the Constitution that actually
permits it either.
>> >I don't disregard the 4th or the 14th Amendments, or any other amend-
>> >ments, except the 18th.
>> Well, this is a good thing. Then how is it that a state can tell you who
>> you may have sex with, yet not violate the right to privacy?
>The right to privacy doesn't mean that you have a right to do whatever
>you want so long as it's done in private. The right to privacy means
>that government can't bust into your home without probable cause that
>a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be com-
>mitted.
That is one interpretation. I interpret the right to privacy to include
that government can't tell you what to do, so long as you are not
interfering with other people's rights.
>> >> >> Why would the 10th amendment take precedence over the 9th, or any other
>> >> >> amendment, which to me guarantee privacy?
>> >> >For the same reason the 21st takes precedence over the 18th. And the
>> >> This is obsurd and clearly ridiculous. The 21st repeals the 18th
amendment
>.
>> >Words that begin with ob: oboe, obituary, obsurd....
>> Ahhh....a spelling mistake. Obviously my argument must be flawed
>Obviously...there's another one :-)
>
>> how absurd X-)
>Much better :)
>
>> >> The 10th doesn't repeal the 9th. You can't even use dating, because they
>> >> were both passed as part of the same package! You are saying that the
>> >No they weren't. If they were, they'd be part of the same amendment.
>> They were all passed in 1791. Now it may be the case that they were, or
>> weren't passed all at the exact same time. I don't know if this is exactly
>> the case. but the "Bill of Rights" includes all 10 amendments, so
>> therefore, it is obvious that it is considered a package deal, until such
>> time that one or more of them get repealed.
>No, it's not a package deal. Legally, there is no such thing as the
>"Bill of Rights." The term is used to refer to the first 10 amendments,
>but in actuality there is nothing special about those amendments, es-
>pecially nothing that would have them be considered as one package.
>Elsewise, as I said, they would be parts of one amendment.
The 10th amendment also reserves rights to the people, besides the state.
So if you wish to claim states rights based on the 10th amendment, I will
claim that personal rights in the 10th amendment, supported by the 9th
amendment, are overriding.
>> >Huh? Doesn't the 1st strike out the 9th? And the 18th the 21st?
>> I was being sarcastic. In that event, it would be impossible to repeal any
>> amendment, and we still haven't quite repealed the 16th yet.
>OK...then my argument still stands...the 10th overrides the 9th, so
>far as they are inconsistent.
Why are they inconsistent? The 10th reserves powers to the people, and the
9th points that the constitution's lack of enumeration doesn't disparage
other rights held by the people. That is enough for me. The part reverting
powers to state is the inconsistent part, so that is the part that should
have less precedent.
>> >> Under your reasoning, powers to the state would override things like free
>> >> speech and privacy.
>> >No they wouldn't. Where do you get that idea?
>> well, you have already said that the state can tell you who you may have sex
>> with, which to me seems to be saying that the state can interfere with your
>> privacy.
>Well, again, the state can't interfere with your privacy without pro-
>bable cause.
How can the state tell you who you may have sex with, if it can't be
regulated without interfering with privacy?
ANd screw the minority?
>(Technically, of course, this isn't quite the case, but it's close.
>I would like to see more popular participation in government, now that
>it is technologically feasible.) So it's not like we live under a
>ruthless dictator. Even the Constitution guarantees each state a
>"republican form of government." (So if your governor is a Democrat,
>you can ask the Army to depose him :-)
ha! well, we do have Pataki here...I never had too much a problem with him
until I saw him on TV saying that the NY Republican primary system is
rigged, and now I think he is a complete and utter idiot and fool.
>> Under the images in my head, I see a vision of you not believing that we
>> actually own our lives.
>Well....we own our lives, I suppose. But we also are members of so-
>ciety, and parties to the social contract.
The social contract...and which one would that be...the Constitution?
>> Do you favor keeping suicide illegal too?
>Yes, except for people who are terminally ill and living in a vege-
>tative state or unbearable pain. Note that this has nothing to do
>with whether or not terminally ill people, or anybody else, has a
>right to die. (Of course, no successful commission of the crime has
>ever been punished.)
But why would you favor keeping suicide illegal, with the exceptions you
note? Isn't keeping suicide illegal an arrogant statement by the state that
it owns your life? There is only one thing in life that we can really
control, and that is to end it prematurely. Take that away, and we are
slaves of the state...
of course, you are right, and it is impossible to punish the offender once
the crime has been succesfully perpetrated. But it is the concept that
troubles me. Even if it is a law that the state can't really
enforce...(well, I suppose it can go after those who have failed in their
attempt and lock them up in mental institutions)
>> I agree too, that it is neccesary to the function of a lawful society. We
>> have to follow laws and rulings, or else we risk going to jail or whatever,
>> and we also risk breakdown of society if taken far enough.
>> >In other words, I accept a court's decision as law, while reserving
>> >the right to disagree with the decision.
>> Yes, except I also believe that what I believe to be bad decisions need to
>> be changed, and people need to work to change them, if they agree.
>I agree that bad decisions need to be changed. I'm not an activist,
>though, so it's not like I pick a Supreme Court "bad decision du jour"
>and go to Washington and protest against it.
>
>Oh well...time to go check on the scrubbing bubbles that work hard so
>I don't have to.
ummm..hope you are having fun with ummm, your scrubbing bubbles X-)
Travis Kidd
> >> >> "allow" junk food???
> >> >By not forbidding it.
> >> how very generous of them!
> >> By what right would they have to forbid it though?
> >By sovereignty, and by the fact that nothing in the Constitution
> >forbids it. (I'm assuming that nothing in the state constitution
> >forbids it as well.)
> Of course though, I don't see anything in the Constitution that actually
> permits it either.
> That is one interpretation. I interpret the right to privacy to include
> that government can't tell you what to do, so long as you are not
> interfering with other people's rights.
But that's not what the 4th Amendment says. If your argument is that
the 9th Amendment simply is a loophole-closer of the 4th, then it
doesn't support this interpretation.
> >No, it's not a package deal. Legally, there is no such thing as the
> >"Bill of Rights." The term is used to refer to the first 10 amendments,
> >but in actuality there is nothing special about those amendments, es-
> >pecially nothing that would have them be considered as one package.
> >Elsewise, as I said, they would be parts of one amendment.
> The 10th amendment also reserves rights to the people, besides the state.
> So if you wish to claim states rights based on the 10th amendment, I will
> claim that personal rights in the 10th amendment, supported by the 9th
> amendment, are overriding.
Whatever powers don't belong to the feds or the states belong to the
people.
> >> >Huh? Doesn't the 1st strike out the 9th? And the 18th the 21st?
> >> I was being sarcastic. In that event, it would be impossible to repeal any
> >> amendment, and we still haven't quite repealed the 16th yet.
> >OK...then my argument still stands...the 10th overrides the 9th, so
> >far as they are inconsistent.
> Why are they inconsistent? The 10th reserves powers to the people, and the
I never said they were inconsistent.
> 9th points that the constitution's lack of enumeration doesn't disparage
> other rights held by the people. That is enough for me. The part reverting
> powers to state is the inconsistent part, so that is the part that should
> have less precedent.
That's not inconsistent. And besides, the Constitution is not an "odd
man out" deal. The whole document must be considered, with latter
amendments overriding former ones so far as they are inconsistent.
> >Well, again, the state can't interfere with your privacy without pro-
> >bable cause.
> How can the state tell you who you may have sex with, if it can't be
> regulated without interfering with privacy?
Well...that's a good question. Whether or not the state can enforce
its rule is a separate issue from whether or not it can make the rule.
I've brainstormed possible criteria for "prima facie" evidence of
violating sex laws...for example, a car parked at someone's house
overnight with the lights out...but I haven't really found a good
solution.
> >No....that's the great thing about America. The *people* are sovereign,
> >not governors. Don't forget that *we* are the ones who elect our
> >legislators. Whatever laws they pass, are passed with our blessing.
> ANd screw the minority?
Yes, so long as rights aren't interfered with.
> >> Under the images in my head, I see a vision of you not believing that we
> >> actually own our lives.
> >Well....we own our lives, I suppose. But we also are members of so-
> >ciety, and parties to the social contract.
> The social contract...and which one would that be...the Constitution?
Yes, and all statutes, and the common law.
> But why would you favor keeping suicide illegal, with the exceptions you
> note? Isn't keeping suicide illegal an arrogant statement by the state that
> it owns your life? There is only one thing in life that we can really
> control, and that is to end it prematurely. Take that away, and we are
> slaves of the state...
Well, the state doesn't really own your life. You can always leave
the state. "While you're under my roof, you do as I say" doesn't
mean you can't leave. If you want to commit suicide legally, go on
a cruise ship.
> of course, you are right, and it is impossible to punish the offender once
> the crime has been succesfully perpetrated. But it is the concept that
> troubles me. Even if it is a law that the state can't really
> enforce...(well, I suppose it can go after those who have failed in their
> attempt and lock them up in mental institutions)
I understand what you're saying, and in a way I empathize. But
to allow suicide would, I think, contribute to a lack of respect
for human life, and would lead to more homicides as well as contribute
to a general moral breakdown of society.
Just a thought....would you be in favor of banning suicide for the
purpose of avoiding prosecution for murder?
> Russ
-Travis
Russell Klein
>> >> >> Please explain to me how this is the case, that state legislatures may
>> >> >> "allow" junk food???
>> >> >By not forbidding it.
>> >> how very generous of them!
>> >> By what right would they have to forbid it though?
>> >By sovereignty, and by the fact that nothing in the Constitution
>> >forbids it. (I'm assuming that nothing in the state constitution
>> >forbids it as well.)
>> Of course though, I don't see anything in the Constitution that actually
>> permits it either.
>The 2nd Amendment permits it.
No kidding? Let me look at the Second Amendment again...I must've missed
something..
wait...are you saying that because the second amendment spells out that the
people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that because
there is not a simmilar amendment specifying that the right to keep and bare
junk food, the government may infringe upon this "right"???
Please...enlighten me...
>> That is one interpretation. I interpret the right to privacy to include
>> that government can't tell you what to do, so long as you are not
>> interfering with other people's rights.
>But that's not what the 4th Amendment says. If your argument is that
>the 9th Amendment simply is a loophole-closer of the 4th, then it
>doesn't support this interpretation.
>
>> >No, it's not a package deal. Legally, there is no such thing as the
>> >"Bill of Rights." The term is used to refer to the first 10 amendments,
>> >but in actuality there is nothing special about those amendments, es-
>> >pecially nothing that would have them be considered as one package.
>> >Elsewise, as I said, they would be parts of one amendment.
>> The 10th amendment also reserves rights to the people, besides the state.
>> So if you wish to claim states rights based on the 10th amendment, I will
>> claim that personal rights in the 10th amendment, supported by the 9th
>> amendment, are overriding.
>Whatever powers don't belong to the feds or the states belong to the
>people.
Which leaves the people with nothing, since virtually everything seems to be
coverable by the interstate commerce clause and other overstretched clauses,
and since the states come first under this reasoning, then they can claim
virtually anything left untouched by the Fedmonster). I don't believe that
this is what the framers had in mind.
>> 9th points that the constitution's lack of enumeration doesn't disparage
>> other rights held by the people. That is enough for me. The part reverting
>> powers to state is the inconsistent part, so that is the part that should
>> have less precedent.
>That's not inconsistent. And besides, the Constitution is not an "odd
>man out" deal. The whole document must be considered, with latter
>amendments overriding former ones so far as they are inconsistent.
Well, I think I see what our disagreement relates to...I believe that the
rights we have pre-exist government, so therefore, with the 9th and 10th,
power is reverting back to the state and or the people...since I feel that
people already have these rights, then the government can't, or at least,
shouldn't interfere with them...
>> >Well, again, the state can't interfere with your privacy without pro-
>> >bable cause.
>> How can the state tell you who you may have sex with, if it can't be
>> regulated without interfering with privacy?
>Well...that's a good question. Whether or not the state can enforce
>its rule is a separate issue from whether or not it can make the rule.
>I've brainstormed possible criteria for "prima facie" evidence of
>violating sex laws...for example, a car parked at someone's house
>overnight with the lights out...but I haven't really found a good
>solution.
Well, that example you gave (not that I am saying you are advocating it!!!)
is a horrible way to do it...Great...I have my sister or my brother spend
the night at my apartment, and all of a sudden, the police (maybe we can
create a new task for the ATF? X-) burst in and discover that I have a guy
and a girl...then they can reasonably conclude that I am running a sex
ring...then they will find out it is my brother and my sister, and they will
conclude that I am running a perverted sex ring! X-)
I can see no way to do it, other than using big-brother tactics.
Apart from my obvious feelings about the state claiming they have the right
to say who I can/can't have sex with, I feel that if a conceivable
constitutional way to enforce the law can't be discovered, then there is
something wrong with the law itself, until such acceptable means are
conceived to enact it (such as was declared with the death penalty).
>> >No....that's the great thing about America. The *people* are sovereign,
>> >not governors. Don't forget that *we* are the ones who elect our
>> >legislators. Whatever laws they pass, are passed with our blessing.
>> ANd screw the minority?
>Yes, so long as rights aren't interfered with.
I guess then the question is of one of how far those rights go.
>> >> Under the images in my head, I see a vision of you not believing that we
>> >> actually own our lives.
>> >Well....we own our lives, I suppose. But we also are members of so-
>> >ciety, and parties to the social contract.
>> The social contract...and which one would that be...the Constitution?
>Yes, and all statutes, and the common law.
The more I think about it, the Constitution is written with several
flaws...the first 10 amendments should have been written into the
constitution itself, and so should have other amendments. Some clauses
should have been more carefully written...as a sort of personal project, I
am writing my own consitution... I will probably post it here when I finish
in the next month or two...
>> But why would you favor keeping suicide illegal, with the exceptions you
>> note? Isn't keeping suicide illegal an arrogant statement by the state that
>> it owns your life? There is only one thing in life that we can really
>> control, and that is to end it prematurely. Take that away, and we are
>> slaves of the state...
>Well, the state doesn't really own your life. You can always leave
>the state. "While you're under my roof, you do as I say" doesn't
>mean you can't leave. If you want to commit suicide legally, go on
>a cruise ship.
So if I can't afford to leave the country, or go on a cruise ship, then I
can't kill myself legally, and the state in effect owns my life?
Plus, what about *my* roof and *my* property? As long as I am not violating
anyone elses rights, I should not having as the final insult a state telling
me I can't kill myself when I want to make my 'final exit'...
>> of course, you are right, and it is impossible to punish the offender once
>> the crime has been succesfully perpetrated. But it is the concept that
>> troubles me. Even if it is a law that the state can't really
>> enforce...(well, I suppose it can go after those who have failed in their
>> attempt and lock them up in mental institutions)
>I understand what you're saying, and in a way I empathize. But
>to allow suicide would, I think, contribute to a lack of respect
>for human life, and would lead to more homicides as well as contribute
>to a general moral breakdown of society.
Oh good...then I suppose the government will also stop waging war, except in
self defense, because that also tends to show a lack of respect for human
life (gee, lets bulldoze mountains of sand over the Iraqis, even though at
every turn they are surrendering left and right in huge numbers)...
Suicides lead to more homicides? Really? why do you say this? is there
any evidence to back this up?
>Just a thought....would you be in favor of banning suicide for the
>purpose of avoiding prosecution for murder?
I truthfully don't understand what you mean by this question...can you
please re word it or explain what you mean here?
Travis Kidd
ME WHILE I WAS PROOFREADING IT! Well...guess it's my fault for not
suspending (i.e., saving for later reediting) it.
Anyway, take 2....
On Sun, 24 Mar 1996 13:15:53 +0000 Russell Klein <klei...@ait.fredonia.edu> sai
d:
(Stuff deleted...if you want to know what we're talking about, read
prior posts :-)
> >> Of course though, I don't see anything in the Constitution that actually
> >> permits it either.
> >The 2nd Amendment permits it.
> No kidding? Let me look at the Second Amendment again...I must've missed
> something..
Notice how it doesn't make it illegal for states to allow junk food.
> wait...are you saying that because the second amendment spells out that the
> people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that because
> there is not a simmilar amendment specifying that the right to keep and bare
> junk food, the government may infringe upon this "right"???
Yeah, you could think of it that way.
> Please...enlighten me...
OK...the Constitution is interpreted permissively vis a vis (I just
had to put that term in :-) the states, and restrictively as regards
the feds.
Actually, I may have my terms backwards. As used here, "permissively"
means permitting what is not expressly prohibited, and "restrictively"
means prohibiting what is not expressly permitted.
> >Whatever powers don't belong to the feds or the states belong to the
> >people.
> Which leaves the people with nothing, since virtually everything seems to be
> coverable by the interstate commerce clause and other overstretched clauses,
> and since the states come first under this reasoning, then they can claim
> virtually anything left untouched by the Fedmonster). I don't believe that
> this is what the framers had in mind.
Well, actually, if the Constitution were interpreted correctly, it would
sooner be the case that the feds would claim anything left untouched by
the Statemonsters. But that isn't the case either. There are certain
things that neither the feds nor the states can do. This has to do
with rights that the people have, for example: the right to express
one's opinion, the right to travel (sorta), the right to marry and
raise a family, and the right to believe what one wishes about the
supernatural and live in accordance with one's beliefs (so long as
one doesn't violate belief-neutral laws).
> Well, I think I see what our disagreement relates to...I believe that the
> rights we have pre-exist government, so therefore, with the 9th and 10th,
> power is reverting back to the state and or the people...since I feel that
> people already have these rights, then the government can't, or at least,
> shouldn't interfere with them...
Well, (we both use "Well," too much :-) the Constitution doesn't depend
on whether rights pre-exist government. The 9th just says that there
are certain rights that the people have, even if the Constitution does-
n't say so explicitly. The 10th says that what the feds can't do, the
states can, and what neither can do, the people can.
> >> >Well, again, the state can't interfere with your privacy without pro-
> >> >bable cause.
> >> How can the state tell you who you may have sex with, if it can't be
> >> regulated without interfering with privacy?
> I can see no way to do it, other than using big-brother tactics.
You may be right. Or granting one immunity for his testimony against
another.
> Apart from my obvious feelings about the state claiming they have the right
> to say who I can/can't have sex with, I feel that if a conceivable
> constitutional way to enforce the law can't be discovered, then there is
> something wrong with the law itself, until such acceptable means are
> conceived to enact it (such as was declared with the death penalty).
Well just because there's no practical way to enforce it doesn't mean
the law itself is bad. Practically speaking, if the law can't be en-
forced, then you have nothing to worry about. But it doesn't invalidate
the law. There may one day be a way to prosecute such crimes, and it's
good to have the law already on the books when that day comes. Also,
the law expresses the state's opinion as to what is right and wrong...
so it acts as a resolution, but even stronger. The expression of this
opinion may tend to lead to more people following it and living their
lives in accordance with it, even if those who don't can't actually be
punished.
I'm not sure what the deal was with the death penalty. The death
penalty had been in existence long before and after the 14th Amendment,
with no major challenges. Then in the 1970's, the Supreme Court said
something to the effect of "We don't like the way you're doing this,"
and struck down the death penalty with one fell swoop. More people
became murder victims at least partly because of this ruling. I just
don't see in the Constitution a right to a jury recommendation of a
sentence in death penalty cases.
> >Yes, so long as rights aren't interfered with.
> I guess then the question is of one of how far those rights go.
Exactly. That's where you and I disagree. I think that that's where
you and most people disagree. Not that I don't respect the libertarian
philosophy; it is wonderfully consistent. But I don't believe it's
pragmatic in today's society.
> The more I think about it, the Constitution is written with several
> flaws...the first 10 amendments should have been written into the
> constitution itself, and so should have other amendments. Some clauses
Yes, the first 10 amendments (I'm glad you remembered the 10th...the
Supreme Court has shown in the past few decades a propensity to forget
that it even exists) should have been included in the original document.
And some states wouldn't ratify the Constitution without them. (So
thank the states for the Bill of Rights!) But I don't think our country
has suffered any because they're amendments.
Also, I've been wondering...shouldn't amendments actually be amendments?
I mean like "In the preamble, strike 'We the people' and insert in its
place 'The people of the respective states.'"? Either way works, I
guess, but this way the Constitution wouldn't be cluttered with repealed
material.
> should have been more carefully written...as a sort of personal project, I
> am writing my own consitution... I will probably post it here when I finish
> in the next month or two...
Cool! I'd like to see it. It reminds me of when I tried posting my
interpretation of the Constitution clause by clause. But there wasn't
much response, and so I stopped doing it. The interest wasn't worth
the effort.
> So if I can't afford to leave the country, or go on a cruise ship, then I
> can't kill myself legally, and the state in effect owns my life?
Well, if you are determined to kill yourself legally, I'm sure you
can find the funds to go on a cruise ship.
> Plus, what about *my* roof and *my* property? As long as I am not violating
> anyone elses rights, I should not having as the final insult a state telling
> me I can't kill myself when I want to make my 'final exit'...
What makes your property deed valid?
> >I understand what you're saying, and in a way I empathize. But
> >to allow suicide would, I think, contribute to a lack of respect
> >for human life, and would lead to more homicides as well as contribute
> >to a general moral breakdown of society.
> Oh good...then I suppose the government will also stop waging war, except in
> self defense, because that also tends to show a lack of respect for human
> life (gee, lets bulldoze mountains of sand over the Iraqis, even though at
> every turn they are surrendering left and right in huge numbers)...
I agree with you here...we should not still be in Iraq. I accept war
as an unfortunate necessity at times, but don't like it.
> Suicides lead to more homicides? Really? why do you say this? is there
> any evidence to back this up?
Well, I don't have any numbers. But it's my feeling, based on my
sense of human nature.
> >Just a thought....would you be in favor of banning suicide for the
> >purpose of avoiding prosecution for murder?
> I truthfully don't understand what you mean by this question...can you
> please re word it or explain what you mean here?
Well, take the case in Scotland, where the guy killed 15 kids, a teach-
er, and himself. Should he have been allowed to kill himself rather
than face prosecution for murder?
> Russ
Well...I think I put back in most of everything that I said the first
time.
-Travis