Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Wow.  I certainly never expected this reaction (I had it in as more
    or less a throwaway comment), but let me see if I can pull a little 
    more from the dim dark recesses of my brain.

    Sometime during the debate over ratification of the constitution
    and the Bill of Rights, one of the 'Founding Fathers' made a comment
    substantially equivalent to what I posted.  I want to say Ben Franklin,
    but I'm not certain about it.  Anyone have a Bartlett's handy to
    pull the exact quote?
    
    In theory, I view government as a balancing act.  It's why there
    are two bodies in Congress, and three branches of government.  Each
    is *supposed* to act as a 'governor' on the racing engines of the
    others.  Sometimes the balance gets skewed for a period of time,
    but usually one of the other branches will eventually reassert itself.
    
    One of the 'balances' which must be maintained is that between the
    majority and the minority.  The Electoral College is designed to
    maintain that balance.  The Bill of Rights is designed to maintain
    that balance.  The process for amending the Constitution is designed
    to maintain that balance.  The veto override provisions are designed
    to maintain that balance.
    
    Most of the time, it works pretty well.
    
    Alison
    

    The Constitution should protect the ultimate minority - the
    individual - from any tyranny, whether it be the tyranny of
    the majority, or the tyranny of some other minority. If each
    individual is protected from tyranny, neither the majority 
    nor any minority can be tyrannized.

    Politicians campaigning should be forced to adhere to the "promises"
    they make.  Right now, it amounts to nothing more than hype.
    
    A great political cartoon in the Globe showed Bush, lipless, and his
    lips were facing him saying something to the effect of, "We're tired 
    of this charade, George, get yourself another pair".
    
    Do people still actually believe what candidates say?  The government
    moans that people are voting on looks and charm only but it's the
    government that allows these politicians to BE no more to us than their
    looks or their charm.  Not that voting actually matters anyway.  I've
    always felt voting is simply a placebo given to the public - a little 
    wheel-spinning the government allows us to engage in to give us
    something semi-positive about government to talk about and to satisfy 
    our needs to believe that we live in a democracy.  The elected
    officials are the window dressing.  The real power is wielded behind
    the scenes by people you have no voice with and no control over, i.e.
    the American Medical Association, the NRA, Noriega and his cohorts,
    Sam Walton, (richest man in the US), judges, Hollywood heavies,
    the board of directors at R.J.Reynolds, that financier in Texas, (what's
    his name?  It begins with a P but the rest escapes me), some heavies
    from Japan, (and other foreign countries who "know where the bodies are
    buried"), and of course, the increasingly powerful insurance companies 
    which are beginning to become a branch of the government themselves.  
    Government is merely the interface between them and us.  The little 
    taxpayers are at the end of the line.  And it's a VERY long line.

Re: .5 (Sandy)

    This may be an eminently correctible piece of information, but my
    memory of the context of the "read my lips, no new taxes" line was
    the following:

	Bush says he will not support new taxes.
	Reporter asks if that means he will support raising existing taxes.
	Bush looks disgusted, makes some remark that expresses his disgust,
	    and says:

		"Read my lips.  No new taxes."

    Maybe if more Americans had "read between his lips" (i.e., listened to
    what he said instead of concentrating on the showmanship), they would
    have realized the truth:

	Bush never said he would not raise taxes.


     Sharon

What is the big deal about the First amendment?

Since flags are not specifically mentioned in the First amendment I don't see
how they can be considered in any constitutional argument.

The government should establish an appointed director of speech who 
as an unelected official shall be empowered to decide which speeches have a 
legitimate or sporting purpose and which ones should be banned.

I see nothing wrong with the government controling radio, TV, and Movies.
The framer's of the constitution never envisioned these things so clearly 
they are not protected. 

I think anyone who wishes to make a speech or any public appearance should
be required to get a permit and wait 14 days after applying for the permit
so that the government can check to see if he/she has a history of making 
inflammatory speeches or not. This should be done every time he/she wishes
to make a speech or appear on radio or TV regardless of whether he/she has
been given a permit in the past.


Amos

    
    Well this discussion really has kicked up some dust.
    
    Is this a conversation about what government should do?  Or is
    it a debate about what the USA government was designed to do?
    
    Is it about local or state or national?
    
    Now for my opinions;
    
    Let's start with the USA national government.
    
    The basic purposes of the national government are;
    
    1. To preserve the Union.
    2. Provide for the common defense.
    3. Protect the rights of individuals (Not groups) from the government
       ,from other groups and individuals.
    4. To establish laws which do not conflict with the Supreme Court's
       interpretation of the Constitution for anything else that we
       want laws to cover.
    
    The basic purpose of my elected representatives are;
    
    1. To get as much of what is handed out to go to my and my state.
    2. To work to enact laws and programs which they have promised which
       could be percieved as transending state boundaries.
    
    
    The state and local governments are similar, more accountable and
    less concerned about my rights.
    
    
    As you can see the federal system was designed to be weak, bloated
    and ineffective due to so many conflicting interests, however the
    bright side is that you will never have a King or a dictator.
    
    
    As for you gun owners, Part 1 section 4 above is what allows us
    to outlaw certain guns because the current Supreme court interpetation
    of the right to "Bear arms" has been interpreted (since about 1870)
    as the right to "Bear resonable arms".  Thats why you can't own
    a tank and why the NRA backed the 1929 ban on fully automatic machine
    guns.  If an elected local, state or federal lawmaking body determains
    that a weapon is "unreasonable" and the current supreme court agrees
    then it can be banned.
    
     
                                                   

>             <<< Note 206.10 by CAM::ARENDT "Harry Arendt CAM::" >>>
>                    -< I think I know some of the answers. >-

    
>    The basic purposes of the national government are;
    
>    1. To preserve the Union.
>    2. Provide for the common defense.
>    3. Protect the rights of individuals (Not groups) from the government
>       ,from other groups and individuals.

Correct!

>    4. To establish laws which do not conflict with the Supreme Court's
>       interpretation of the Constitution for anything else that we
>       want laws to cover.

Not quite! 
   
>    As for you gun owners, Part 1 section 4 above is what allows us
>    to outlaw certain guns because the current Supreme court interpetation
>    of the right to "Bear arms" has been interpreted (since about 1870)
>    as the right to "Bear resonable arms".  Thats why you can't own
>    a tank and why the NRA backed the 1929 ban on fully automatic machine
>    guns.  If an elected local, state or federal lawmaking body determains
>    that a weapon is "unreasonable" and the current supreme court agrees
>    then it can be banned.
    
How many times do we have to re-explain this? how many people have been fooled 
by the media as to supreme court rulings? did you ever look up the rulings
yourself?

There is nothing in the Second amendment about reasonable-ness.

the only ruling (Miller VS U.S. 1939) that addressed the second amendment
stated that the particular weapon (a sawed off shotgun) was *NOT* suitable
for military use and therefore not protected. in other words *ANY* firearm
suitable for military use *IS* protected and in fact is *EXACTLY* what the 
framers of the constitution had in mind. 
In 1929 the NRA was (and still is today) a target shooting organization
it is the *ILA* which does the political stuff.

Also in 1929 the country was in the throes of a alcohol-mania. the "war on 
alcohol" had to be won. there were drive-by shootings, gangs of rival
drug-oopps I meant alcohol- pushers in the cities. the media and government 
had joined forces to panic the public into believing that if we outlaw these 
guns the killings will stop.
    
Please read history before you continue to spout the lies handed to you by the 
media, that you haven't researched the truth of.

    When Europe unifies in 1992, what new government bodies will be put in
    place?  What are the checks and balances in the unified government?  Is
    there any mention of people's rights, or is it all monetary?
    

    
    They already have a passel of expensive bureaucrats in Brussels and
    Strasbourg..

    "All men (but thats what he said) are created equal and endowed by
    their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life
    liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  To preserve these rights
    governments are instituted among men."
    

    
    government exists to create and maintain order.
    

    re .15 The Third Reich created and maintained order very well. Does
    it, then, qualify as a legitimate government ? Even if it was
    responsible for the deaths of millions ? 
    
    To define by non-essentials is dangerous. If all a government need
    do to remain legitimate is maintain order, then the government
    of Red China is superb. The dictatorships around the world do great
    jobs of maintaining order. The key ? Ignore the rights of individuals.

	RE: last few.

	I am of the opinion that goverment as we know and "love" today,
	is and was a process of keeping people in their place.  That is,
	it was designed and supported by the priviledged class to keep
	them in the priviledged class.  By the means of maintaining
	"law and order" where they get to define what is lawful and what
	is orderful.

	One does not need to look very far to see the results of this
	mindset.  I recently saw the movie "Romero" - I recommend it to
	everyone - where a person who believed in what he was doing, and
	who wanted to maintain law and order was forced into acts that
	were no longer considered lawful or orderful.  How was he forced
	to perform these acts, one might ask?  Simple,  he believed in
	the sancity of life, all life and he believed in the sancity of
	his church to nuture life, all life.  This included the people
	who lived in the slums (actually they lived in garbage dumps)
	and the rural poor who owned no land, no house, but had a church
	that listened to their plight.

	Now where does goverment fit in to this - they (members of the
	priviledge class made the rules and would enforce them only 
	when they would benefit.  To me goverment is inherently a bad
	thing, and the more control it has the worse it is.  Is there
	an altenative?  At this point I can not see one, but that does	
	not mean that there isn't one - (I have not begun my Phd thesis
	yet, just a little of the research).

	It is just possible that the problem with goverment are the ones
	who get to be part of it, and influnce the decisions.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Goverment of man, by man and for man
			is a delusion - we are all part of the
			Earth and can not control her cycles.

    
    the question was not what was 'good' government, merely what is the
    role of government. i would suggest that in its essence our
    'enlightened' government is not that different from the fascists.
    

    Back in the disty mists of almost-prehistory...
    
    Government was the entity that protected the grain crop, seeing that
    it was gathered and stored, meting out to everyone as they needed
    it, rationing it if necessary, and trying to insure that there was
    seed grain for the next planting.
    
    Government was the entity that protected the borders of the community
    against outside forces (human and `natural') which would negatively
    affect the members of the community.
    
    ...
    
    All governments are agreed that there are two crimes: Nonpayment of
    taxes, and Attempting to overthrow the government.  All others are
    optional.
    
    							Ann B.

    re .19 Unless you win.