[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Tue Mar 26 00:19:17 UTC 2002


On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> This is why courts should not write law.

Well, Roe v. Wade isn't a law, it's an interpretation of the 14th
Amendment.

Personally, I'd like to see the 14th Amendment replaced entirely with an
amendment written in similar language to one of the first ten begins with
the repeal of the 14th Amendment and that goes on to gaurantee the
protection of the right to

1. be treated equally under the law with all other people in the United
States and its protectorates regardless of race, color, creed, gender,
sex, lifestyle, or physical condition unless duly convicted of treason or
other high crime in a court of law.  Convicted high criminals may have
certain enumerated rights suspended during a period of sentence which
shall be for a limited time.

2. make and execute decisions related to one's personal physical condition
and seek and secure any assistance necessary to that execution.

The first section is a broader and more comprehensive equal protection
clause than the 14th Amendment currently carries and removes the much
abused and maligned citizenship clause as well as the ability to
permanently remove voting rights from a person for any felony.

The second section codifies a gauranteed sphere of control over one's
physical body.  This should be obvious, but for some people isn't.

Just so's y'all know, I'm not going to discuss whether or not the unborn
qualify as people for the equal protection claim.  Don't bring it up. Yes,
it's an issue and always will be.  There are arguments to be made, but
they're unproductive in this forum.

> Congress would never have passed a bill making abortion legal because
> they would not want to be accountable to the voters.  Most presidents
> would not have signed it for the same reason.  By legislating from the
> bench, the court made law that most Americans didn't want.

First and foremost, you don't need a law making something legal.  Things
are legal until made illegal and they can only be made illegal if they are
not gauranteed by higher law.

Second, no idea where you get your numbers, but what I've read indicates
that MOST Americans support a freedom of choice, whether they would
personally support that choice or not.  I've read numbers from 65-80%.

Abortion is just one of many issues that is in public debate, but not
popular debate.  Corporate control and election financing are two more
issues with the same problem.  The public believes one thing, those who
debate in public believe another.  BusinessWeek ran a poll that showed
that 73% of Americans think corporations have too much power and control
over everyday life and greater than 60% believe corporate money shouldn't
be involved in elections.  Why is this DEBATED by Congress?  The court of
public opinion is no longer in session.

> At any rate, it should not be this hard to answer a simple question.  
> Laws should be in black and white.  The courts have taken power that
> they should not have in my opinion.

There's really no such thing as a black & white law.  Talk to Kurt Goedel.

There are always terms that need to be defined or special cases that are
"borderline" or clearly INTENDED, but not codified explicitly.

Do you realize how absurd Amendment I would look if you had to actually
write down all the things that "freedom of speech" or "the press" was
intended to mean?  If it just meant talking and printing, mutes could be
forbidden from communication and hand-written documents could be
officially banned.  And every time you add a couple of things, there are a
couple more that you intended, but forgot in the moment.

Rightfully, there must be a body that interprets law and those
interpretations must carry weight.  This body must be hierarchical so that
high level decisions will be consistent over time, but also able to
rescind past decisions made in times of less wisdom or knowledge.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list