Prev: RE: [OT] Liberals was: Personal hoody-hoo Next: Re: [SG2] detached element questions

Re: [OT] Liberals was: Personal hoody-hoo

From: Michael Llaneza <maserati@e...>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 21:41:35 -0700
Subject: Re: [OT] Liberals was: Personal hoody-hoo

It makes pefect sense to me. The 1st Ammendment is What. The 2nd is How.

Freedom, and the right to protect it.

OBGZG-L: What sort of constitution does the NAC operate under ?

OBOT: I'm going to commit an Internet faux pas and explain my .sig.  The

quote is from the opinion by Attorney General Andrew Johnson 
establishing the military tribunal to try and execute John Wilkes Booth 
(assasinated Pres. Lincoln in 1865). There was a discussion on 
kuro5hin.org about the military tribunals in operation right now. The 
Booth tribunal came up as precedent. Someone quoted the document my .sig

links to, the passage was " These banditti that spring up in time of war

are respecters of no law, human or divine, of peace or of war... and may

be hunted down like wolves."

The respondent objected to the presence of the	phrase "hunted down like

wolves" in a document being cited on Constitutional issues on the 
grounds that such a savage sentiment disqualified a document from being 
considered part of Constitutional canon. I read the docuemnt and found 
the phrase I quote, which I strongly believe lies at the heart and in 
the bone of the found fathers' intent. So I made it my .sig.

It's a fascinating read if you have any interest in Constitutional
issues.

Ryan M Gill wrote:

> Same here. People have trouble grokking why I'm a member of the ACLU 
> _and_ the NRA. Of course, I was just bloody annoyed that after joining

> the ACLU I some how got on Al Gore and Bill Clinton's "send us money" 
> list for junk mail. I'm so annoyed by it I'm going it give the ACLU an

> earful about it first good opportunity I have. At least the NRA puts 
> me on mailing lists for neat catalogs and stuff. I've yet to start 
> receiving hard conservatives asking me for money.

-- 
These constitutional guarantees can not be estimated too highly, or
protected too sacredly. The reader of history knows that for many weary
ages the people suffered for the want of them; it would not only be
stupidity, but madness in us not to preserve them.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/commi
ssionorder.html

Prev: RE: [OT] Liberals was: Personal hoody-hoo Next: Re: [SG2] detached element questions