[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;) Void Law

J Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Sun Jun 30 08:30:49 UTC 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Miller, Jeremy" <JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:28 PM
Subject: RE: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)


> > Well, much of the philosophy I've been describing borrows heavily from
> > anarcho-syndicalism.
>
> I see... but I never claimed myself that what I was talking about had
> anything to do with anarchism.  Or that it didn't.  That it was against or
> supporting. That it was related or not.
>
> > A little revolution, now and again, is a healthy thing.
>
> Sure.  Just be careful, and be armed with the knowledge that it is
possible
> for it to be very ugly.
>
>
> > Well, what I intended when I wrote "the more appropriate way of
> > interpreting that same data" was that their definition of "terrorism"
> > clearly includes police and military (the use of violence and fear to
> > coerce a population or modify its behavior) and their special
> > exception
> > for "illegal tactics" draws an illusory distinction.
>
> I prefer not acknowledge the definition that refer to (disagreeing with it
> myself), and stick to the dictionary version.
>
> Use of violence is (or at least should) be the last resort of the police.
> I'd wager (with no supporting data :) that the vast majority of cases do
not
> require it.  And this is directed against an individual, not a population.
>
>  - Note... I think you might have crowd control tactics in mind, and agree
> that these are special circumstaces where you may very well be quite
> correct.  I believe these sort of circumstances to be the exception to be
> addressed, not the general rule. -
>
>
> > Well, I don't think that's who we have in prison anymore.  I think our
> > prisons are mostly just full of desperate poor people who
> > were born the
> > wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time.
>
> You are right.  But this doesn't mean prisons can't serve a purpose... it
> means they are being misused.
>
>
> > > Agreed, and this is the best reason to codify as little as
> > neccessary.
> >
> > Or nothing at all.
>
> To be determined, I suppose? :)
>

Asked and answered:  "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are
null and void." -Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

Additionally,  the common law juror is free to void any law that is too
vague,  I would say it is his duty to do so.

It's not just an accident that your common law is not spoken of much by
anyone except those who value Justice over the Rule of Men.  It tends to get
in the would-be rulers way often.

And,  I don't think you are going to have a 27-language jury deliberation
get anywhere fast.
You and I don't even agree on the meaning of common words,  due to your
highly developed ability to find grey where others commonly see black and
white.
One of your ilk in each language in one room could argue until the moon
turns red and the sun goes supernova.

Some just want justice,  not a long drawn-out lip service to it.

Actions are what speak.   I'd rather go home and plow than argue if 2+2=4
and which way is up with jurors who didn't read the constitution and are
only here for the (free) beer.

Those kind of jurors convict on skin color. I have a little higher regard
for my fellow man than that, but the Lowest Common Denominator is what you
find to be the highest ideal.

Which way is up?








More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list