[extropy-chat] Re: White House To Seek Ban On Gay Sex On The Moon

[Mike Lorrey]

--- "Stephen J. Van Sickle" <sjvans at ameritech.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 09:38, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 
> > The federal government has no constitutional authority in this,
> even to
> > the point of saying that our republican form of government would be
> > seriously corrupted by an amendment to the constitution which
> actually
> > limits individual liberties (this would be the first such
> limitation on
> > individual liberties in this document).
> 
> The first such limitation?  Depending on how you define "limitation",
> I suppose.  It seems to me that:
> 
> Article II limits my right to vote for someone who is not yet 35
> years of age, or not a natural born citizen, for president

Sorry, this is the removal of a positive right. Negative rights are the
natural rights, where the constitution says things like "congress shall
make no law" "shall not be infringed" etc.

Your right to for a martian isn't a negative right.

> 
> Amendment XIII removes my right to hold in captivity bound labor, a
> right specifically (though indirectly) granted in Article IV, Section
> 2.

XIII rectifies an earlier self contradiction in the early constitution.
If self-ownership is the core ethic, then one cannot own others.

> 
> Article XVI deprived me of a portion of the results of my labor

According to the SCOTUS: "The 16th Amendment confers no additional
powers of taxation upon the federal government." It was a clarification
that income was included in the indirect taxation power of the federal
government.

> 
> Article XVII deprived me of the right to alcoholic beverages

Struck down, but that does actually meet the criteria, slightly. It did
not deprive you of the right to alcoholic beverages directly, though,
it banned the production of alcoholic beverages, a commerce power and a
positive right. An amendment really wasn't necessary, as production,
distribution, and sale all fall under commerce clause powers, at least
so far as product is shipped across state lines, even by the most
strict interpretation of the commerce clause..

Of course, you'd have to define where the bill of rights guarantees
your right to drink... A recent 9th circuit ruling says that you have a
right to a machine gun you build entirely in your own home, that such
does not fall under the commerce power of the federal govt. This would
obviously apply to any technological product. "Home brew" is
non-regulatable, and it is for this reason the XVII was passed, to
limit your ability to brew at home even after commercial production had ceased.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools