[ExI] texas county judge demands residents wear bananas

[William Flynn Wallace]

The possibility of a change in abortion laws as a result of a Supreme Court
decision is with us.  Some would regard a change as likely, unlike the
possibility of changes in the gun laws.  What might happen with gun laws is
that the ability to buy one might be curbed if the person is mentally ill,
has a certain criminal record, and so on  Some states have these already in
place and others not.

bill w

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 5:59 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 07:10, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> The people who disagree with you may vote for politicians or appoint
>> judges who will then act accordingly. You can, of course, resist, but you
>> are then going against due legal process, which is in part what you claim
>> to be defending.
>>
>> Laws are passed all the time which turn out to be erased because a court,
>> all the way up to the Supreme Court, has decided that they are
>> unconstitutional and are then overturned.  Abortion laws are passed by
>> states hoping to get some votes from their people, and spend a lot of money
>> defending them, only to have them, like all the other ones they passed,
>> overturned by the Supreme Court - or lower.  These cost our very poor state
>> a lot of lawyers' bills. The lawyers know the laws will be overturned but
>> are glad to accept the money.  Gun restrictions can go the same way.  Thus
>> all of it is just political posturing.
>>
>
> A different Supreme Court, or the same on a different day, might decide
> differently given exactly the same written law. It is certainly possible
> they might decide that the right to bear arms does not mean that any
> ordinary citizen can easily buy a gun.
>
> bill w
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 3:09 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 05:04, spike jones via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat
>>>>
>>>> *>>…*The countries which were or have become tyrannies do not have a
>>>> second amendment.  Without second amendment rights, every country is
>>>> vulnerable to becoming a tyranny.  The fine-sounding constitutions without
>>>> that critical factor do not sound fine to me…  spike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >…The US constitution can easily be interpreted by the judiciary to
>>>> allow banning of weapons…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That’s why we have weapons: in case the “judiciary” decides it is
>>>> allowed to ban weapons.
>>>>
>>> If you are saying the law can be ignored if you don’t like it, why go on
>>> about the constitution?
>>>
>>>> >… or formally amended by the legislature…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not the legislature.  The constitution needs a 2/3 majority of the
>>>> states to agree to any constitutional amendment and ¾ of the states to
>>>> ratify.
>>>>
>>> State legislature.
>>>
>>>> Regarding the first ten amendments, those are not really amendments,
>>>> but rather acknowledgement of rights that pre-existed before that
>>>> particular government was invented.  The right to free speech, freedom to
>>>> assemble, to bear arms and so forth, all existed before the US government.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The US government does not have the authority to amend or repeal human
>>>> rights.  If it asserts that authority in the future, it no longer the US
>>>> government and is not entitled to the authorities granted to it by the
>>>> constitution.  At that time, there is no professional army, for there is no
>>>> authority to collect taxes, and no means of paying them.  The absence of a
>>>> professional army is why we have the militia, as the backup.
>>>>
>>> Different humans may have different views of what is a human right. The
>>> right to bear arms is a good example of this. The people who disagree with
>>> you may vote for politicians or appoint judges who will then act
>>> accordingly. You can, of course, resist, but you are then going against due
>>> legal process, which is in part what you claim to be defending.
>>> --
>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200424/117185d7/attachment.htm>