Politics/Ethics: Operation PinWale - Obama Administration Seeks Emergency Control of the Internet

[Robert Holtzman]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:16:39PM -0700, Austin William Wright wrote:
> Jason Spatafore wrote:
> > Give me direct vote on all laws that are presented to Congress. That is
> > all I ask. Until then, this conversation is pretty much over. It's going
> > to be a constant republican vs. democrat vs. independent debate that
> > constantly occurs every single day. 

             ..............snip...............

> Wrong sir. Our founding fathers were VERY AFRAID that this kind of
> thinking would some day emerge, and they set up very plain language in
> the Constitution to try and prevent that. "/Congress shall make no
> law...//abridging the freedom of speech"/ It doesn't get much clearer
> than that. How about "/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./"
> 
> We are NOT a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. There are
> rulers, and there are the ruled, and with the implication that the
> rulers are always better off, a constitution was written that severely
> limited the power of any one person or group of people. The founding
> fathers recognized the danger of one group of people appointing the
> rulers - that is why no one group of people does so. It is why the
> president with the consent of the senate appoints judges, it is why
> judges hold lifetime office, it is why we have the electoral college
> system - so no one person has all the power. If you cannot explicitly
> find where in the Constitution a power is delegated to a particular
> individual, that power is unconstitutional to hold. Period. If you want
> to change it, I suggest you propose an amendment, because the meaning of
> our constitution DOES NOT CHANGE. If it did, there would be no way to
> enforce it or seek out its enemies, "foreign or domestic." Selectively
> interpreting the Constitution is a very slippery slope that will lead to
> disaster, or people in power who you do not agree with (our current and
> previous presidents come to mind). Selectively interpreting the
> Constitution will inevitably lead to your loss of any right granted to
> you under it, because "the majority of people think so."
> 
> Democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. I was walking through
> Boston recently, and coming to the Holocaust memorial I saw a quote, a
> common variation of which goes as follows:
> 
> First they came for the Jews
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not a Jew.
> Then they came for the Communists
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not a Communist.
> Then they came for the trade unionists
> and I did not speak out
> because I was not a trade unionist.
> Then they came for me
> and there was no one left
> to speak out for me.
> 
>  Martin Niemöller
> 
> This serves as a warning, democracy does not protect rights. It enforces
> the coercive will of the majority.

...and that's exactly what some of the contributers to this thread are
espousing. Someone finally caught it.

I didn't snip Austin Wright's post because it bears repeating and repeating 
:and repeating!

-- 
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
 check the price of the beer"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20090831/d8042230/attachment.pgp