[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [POLITICS] 1 Question to Dr. Froomkin... (fwd)
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:13:07 -0800
> Original-From: Bill Stewart <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [POLITICS] 1 Question to Dr. Froomkin...
> you and I are political theorists, and you're asking a political question,
> though I'm not sure what kind of question you mean.
Actualy I am more interested in the why's and wherefor's of the actual
application and less in the theory. If the issue was only theoretical there
wouldn't be over a million people in US jails and the other various excesses
that are currently permitted. That is far from theoretical.
> To a lawyer, the answer is that the Constitution ultimately means
> whatever you can talk the Supreme Court into saying it means,
That is one of the problem with the current approach. The Constitution is
not taken to mean anything. A fundamental flaw, theoreticaly or practicaly.
It is considered a document written by a bunch of long dead guys with little
if any application for todays social structures.
> So which question are you asking, and why?
I'm asking Dr. Froomkin whether he accepts the Constitution as the defining
document of the government (not just the courts which is implicit but
unstated in your various questions) of the United States. I apologize if the
question was unclear. I had intended to structure it in such a way that it
was absolutely clear - it is a yes/no question after all.
Why? Because I want to know. The answer would provide insight and might
provide further information for future strategies.
There is an old saying: Know thy enemy.
| Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make |
| violent revolution inevitable. |
| John F. Kennedy |
| _____ The Armadillo Group |
| ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA |
| /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ |
| .', |||| `/( e\ |
| -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate |
| [email protected] |
| 512-451-7087 |