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

[Lisa Kachold]

How do we get that bill introduced?

On 8/31/09, Robert Holtzman <holtzm at cox.net> wrote:
> 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"
>


-- 
http://linuxgazette.net/165/kachold.html
(623)239-3392
(503)754-4452 www.obnosis.com