Society's Overwhelming Interest

[Mike Duvos <enoch@zipcon.net>]

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote:

 > (And, in my opinion, the modern American system is filled
 > with thousands of examples of laws inconsistent with
 > original Constitutional intent, but not so blatantly
 > clearcut that the Supremes would have to act. The "death of
 > a thousand cuts," or the "frog in boiling water," whatever
 > metaphor one prefers.)

The Supremes can easily dismiss the Constitution any time they
like by using the magic phrase "Society's Overwhelming Interest."

We saw a good example of that today, in a ruling which said that
Society's Overwhelming Interest in protecting its citizen(-unit)s
outweighed the right of specific terminally ill citizen(-unit)s
to smoke marijuana to relieve intractable pain.

Even the First Ammendment falls victim to this phrase when the
Supremes rule that Society's Overwhelming Interest in protecting
its children makes it possible to commit a felony using only a
Playboy, a Jack and Jill, scissors, and a piece of scotch tape.

Similar arguments come out of the Court all the time about
Society's Overwhelming Interest in "preserving the family,"
"protecting children," "empowering parents," "thwarting
terrorists", and generally preserving the right of the state to
rule, to execute, to collect taxes, and to rip out the spleen of
anyone who publicly objects.

Those who regard the Supreme Court as some sort of inviolable
bulwark surrounding our First Ammendment crypto rights are
probably setting themselves up for a rude awakening in the not so
near future.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     enoch@zipcon.com   $    via Finger                       $
         {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}