Re: Netscape download requirements

[Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:

> "9th Amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
> be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> 
> Nothing in here about ITAR.

No David, there isn't.  That's because ITAR represents neither an
enumerated nor unenumerated right of the people.  The application
of ITAR to speech, however, is a violation of the 1st Amendment
which is enumerated.

> "10th Amendment
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States shall not be
> construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
> prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of
> another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
> state."

You "accidentally" misquoted the 10th.  It actually says:

	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.
 
> Nothing in here about ITAR.

See my explanation of the 9th Amendment, supra.

> "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
> establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
> defence,"
> 
> ...
> 
> "The Congress shall have power
> 
> ...
> 
> To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,
> and with the Indian tribes;
> 
> ...
> 
> To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
> execution
> the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the
> government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
> 
> Looks like ITAR is covered there.

Wrong.  Everything quoted above was adopted prior to the adoption
of the Bill of Rights.  In other words, the 1st, 2nd,...9th and
10th AMENDMENTS came after and modify (or amend, get it?) the 
clauses you rely so much on.

Now I see you have "accidentally" forgotten to address my response
to your blatently unconstitutional assertion that I don't have
the right to say that the system is being abused.  Please defend
that assertion, or at least tell us how you think the 1st Amendment
is a nit.

> So don't (as the Russians say) try to teach your Grandmother
> how to suck eggs.

Believe me, David, I don't think I could teach you anything.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~