From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 19:52:37 BST
Hey Platt,
> > R
> > Catch that? Creating the kind of privacy that men need to think, the
kind
> > Phaedrus found on his boat (and presumably once his motorcycle) is THE
MOST
> > MORAL ACTIVITY OF ALL. Moreover, when Lila seeks privacy to sort out
the
> > problems of her life Phaedrus comments on the same page that "...the
> > culture has a moral obligation not to bother her." And Lila's battle is
> > everybody's battle, you know Platt?
P
> I see what you're driving at. And I agree with the value of a place to be
> alone and quiet, to let "the world . . . roll in ecstasy at your feet."
> (Kafka). But I don't really see a connection to sodomy or how engaging in
> sodomy is helpful in sorting out the problems of one's life.
R
Thanks for the Kafka (that's one of favorite quotes of all time :-). The
relevance to sexual conduct I think comes in the part where he talks about
his need to "be what he really was and not what he was thought to be or
supposed to be." It is the freedom of being ourselves that we do our best
work.
> > R
> > Unless you care to offer another alternative....
P
> I will. I think the "people" means communities at a lesser level than the
> state (as in 13/50 states) such as counties, towns, unions, etc. In fact,
> I live in a little community that has its own set of rules and regulations
> in which various individual liberties are restricted. If the 10th
> amendment meant "individuals" it would have used the word "individuals" or
> more specifically, "each citizen." The word "people" refers to more than
> one person, i.e., groups.
R
Okay. That's a fair try but I don't think it will hold water. The first
problem is that the counties, towns, unions, etc are all considered part of
'the State' from which they derive their power to govern (which would make
the amendment redundant). Whenever one of those counties, towns, or unions
acts... the Constitution treats it as "state" action. As used the document,
"the state" is any level of governement that isn't federal. The second
problem is that the word "people" is used all over the Bill of Rights and
ALWAYS used to mean 'people as individuals'. For example, the 4th amendment
states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses
papers and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be
violated...". If "people" is being used in the document to refer to "lower
levels of state government" than the 4th amendment becomes complete
nonsense. The 1st amendment prevents the gov't from restricting "the right
of the people, peacefully to assemble...", the 2nd protects "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms...", the 5th says that "no person" can be
held to answer for a capital crime without a grand jury indictment....etc,
etc. In fact EVERY SINGLE ONE of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is
bestowing some right on "individuals". Including the 9th, which makes it
clear those rights aren't exhaustive... and the 10th, which protects the
right of those same people to share in the unenumerated powers.
P
> Agreement is good. :-)
R
Agreed ;-)
take care
rick
A lawyer without history or literature is a mechanic, a mere working mason;
if he possesses some knowledge of these, he may venture to call himself an
architect. - Sir Walter Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 19:59:12 BST