From: John Marlow (johnmarlow@gmx.net)
Date: Fri Apr 06 2001 - 00:21:59 MDT
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.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:51 MST