Time: Sun Apr 20 07:35:14 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA22763; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 06:58:21 -0700 (MST) by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA08712; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 06:58:16 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 07:29:21 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: [jus-dare] Reese's Piece (fwd) <snip> > >*Jus Dare* >Reese's Piece > >The following article showed up on my cyber doorstep from three >sources over night. The trick now is to get it in the hands of those >who need it, and haven't thought about it. Harold forwarded this one >to the list, so here it is: > >From: Harold Thomas <harold@halcyon.com> >Subject: Charley Reese Warns America > > VIEWPOINT of Charley Reese in the Current Edition of > the "Middle American News"- > > We Must Protect the Constitution Because it Protects our Rights! > > I have a hunch that sometime in the near future a lot of Americans > are going to get shocked out of their complacency. > > I have a hunch that more and more Americans are going to face a > question none of us would like to face. > > The question is: What do you do when you discover your own > government no longer reflects or respects your values and deepest > beliefs? > > It's not a fun question. One of the more unpleasant experiences a > human can have is to find himself in opposition to something as > powerful and as ruthless as a government. > > Americans have been spared this unpleasantness for the past 137 > years. > > In this century most Americans have happily rocked along more or less > in synchronization with the government. > > Policy and partisan differences are just the give-and-take of living > in a democratic society. Sometimes your ideas prevail, and sometimes > they don't. Sometimes your favorite party wins, and sometimes the > other guy's favorite party wins. > > These kinds of differences are not a cause for concern. They can be > resolved by persistent work in the democratic process. Compromise on > policies is always possible as long as all differences remain under > the umbrella of the Constitution and all sides are loyal to the > Constitution. > > That's the key to our country. > > The Constitution sets the boundaries. As long as we all stay within > those boundaries, then we can live with our differences. > > BUT suppose one day we find ourselves face to face with a government > that has effectively discarded those constitutional bounds? > > Suppose the day comes when the government no longer respects the Bill > of Rights and begins to > deny free speech, > interfere in religion, > confiscate private firearms, > confiscate property without compensation or public purpose, > deny people due process, and pass ex post facto laws (making > something retroactively > illegal). > > Suppose the day comes when the government > > will search people and their homes without a warrant and > convict them of crimes on the basis of hearsay testimony, > > denies people the right to trial by a jury of their peers, > and > > criminalizes speech of which it doesn't approve. > > Well, folks, that's when we as a people and the government have a > serious disagreement. > > That's when we discover that all the easy choices and easy solutions > have been squandered and are no longer options. > > I am emphatically not saying that we are at that point now, but I am > saying that there are several dangerous trends in the direction of > effectively scrapping the Constitution. > > Under the guise of protecting the environment, some people are having > their land taken without compensation. Many serious charges, such as > being accused of racial bias, and handled by governmental > administrative processes. The jury process is being threatened by > the practice of moving trials away from the scene of the crime and > picking the dumbest, most ignorant jurors available. > > The Constitution is being eroded by judges who assert that it means > whatever they want it to mean without regard for either the text of > the historical record. Under the guise of combating prejudice, some > forms of speech are being criminalized. > > Speech - even wrong, obnoxious speech - should never be criminalized. > Slander and libel laws are more that sufficient to protect > individuals. If you allow the government, however, to make it a > felony to say something of which it doesn't approve, then you have > effectively killed the First Amendment and fatally wounded a free > society. > > Whatever else we are, whatever other beliefs we may have, we must all > be civil libertarians who fiercely defend the Constitution. > > That's the bond that holds us together as nation. > > Once broken, the nation is broken. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > *JUS DARE* > c/o Dave Delany's Freedom House > PO Box 212 Conklin NY 13748 > ======== > Sponsored by Mike Goldman and By.Net (http://Names.By.Net) > ======== > Perversion of the U.S. Supreme Court > *Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law." > > To subscribe or unsubscribe to *Jus Dare*, send a message to > jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net > In the BODY, put the text "ADD" or "DELETE" respectively. > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail