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