On 5 Apr 2001, at 23:21, John Marlow wrote:
> Right--theoretically. (You'll notice it ain't called the Bill of
> Privileges.) The Supreme court has in fact stated that
> unconstitutional laws need not be obeyed. Nevertheless, executive
> orders are in place which enable the President to "suspend" the
> Constitution and the Congress, and which forbid the Supreme Court
> >from ruling against his actions. I wouldn't put a nickel on which way
> today's military would go in such an event. And the guys with the
> guns are make the rules.
oops--WILL make the rules. (Haven't they always?)
>
> jm
>
> On 5 Apr 2001, at 22:18, Spike Jones wrote:
>
> > John Marlow wrote:
> >
> > > I thought he had a frighteningly valid argument for the curtailment
> > > of First Amendment rights.
> > > > ---------------------------
> > > > How do you reconcile relinquishment with civic rights to innovation? He says 1st
> > > > amendment isn't important since many countries function ok without it. He really
> > > > doesn't have an answer to this...
> >
> > Perhaps some of those who have been in the military will comment
> > on this. The way I understood the constitution, the Bill of Rights
> > cannot be abrogated, now or in the future, thus the name Rights.
> > Those who serve in the military take an oath to defend not the
> > government, but to defend the constitution. The way I read that,
> > should any future U.S. government attempt to repeal any of the
> > Bill of Rights, then that constitutes an attack on the constitution,
> > making that government invalid, so the military is obligated to
> > reestablish a government that is based on the constitution. The
> > government has not the authority to repeal the first amendment,
> > or the second, or any of the Bill of Rights. Right?
> > spike
> >
>
>
> John Marlow
>
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:45 MDT