Re: Pornography, What is it?

[root <root@einstein.ssz.com>]

> 
> At 11:33 PM 1/10/95, Timothy C. May wrote:
> > ... I'm  not a lawyer, and it's been 25 years since I was in a "civics"
> >class, so I'm sorry to not recall the precise language by which
> >"Congress shall make no law" also is taken to apply to Sacramento,
> >Albany, Austin, and so forth.
> 
> The 14th Amendment extended the restrictions that the Bill of Rights place 
> on the Federal Gov't to the state gov'ts.
>  
> 
>     --Paul J. Ste. Marie
>       pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com
> 
Article XIV (1868)

Sec. 1.

All persons  born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States
wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.

Where in there is the protection you speak of? I see no guarantee of my 
Constitutional rights, only of privileges and immunities as granted
by the federal government. 

The 1st Amendment say:

Article 1 (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of greivances.

Lets examine the first part of this article. Since Congress is prohibited 
from making any law (ie no law) respecting religion it follows they don't
even get the opportunity to define religion. When one considers the Supreme
Courts view of Rastafarians, Coptics, and the Native American Church it is 
clear they are making laws respecting an establishment of religion. It is
also clear they are prohibiting the free exercise thereof as well.

The attacks on freedom of speech are quite clear and I won't go into them.

The last part is quite irrelevant since as citizens we can't even sue the
government in civil court without first getting its permission. Not what
I would call supporting our rights to redress of greivances.

Article IV (1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and 
the persons or things to be seized.

Have you ever heard of the DoJ Forfeiture Super Fund?

Why do courts allow law enforcement to act upon anonymous tips when no 
oath or affirmation is given in such a case? 

Article V (1791)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases 
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service
in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the    
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
propety be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The last sentence is the most commenly broken aspect of this amendment.

A strong case could be made that breathalyzer, blood tests, and such also
violate the spirit and letter of this article.

Article VI (1791)

In all criminal procecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously 
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the 
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assisstance of counsel for his defence.

Seems to me that according to this anonymouse witnesses should not be allowed
in any case. Since he also has a right to a public trial the court does not
have the power to exclude the press or public. 

Article IX (1791)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This article states quite clearly and simply that if there is any doubt as
to whether it is a right the resolution shall be found in favor of the people.

Article X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people.

This article states clearly that if it isn't in this document the federal 
government has no claim to it. The only way they may get such powers is
through due process, namely constitutional amendments.