From: Matt Jensen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 14 2001 - 07:07:23 PDT
[resending this, not no-archive.]
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Matt Jensen wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2001, Russell Turpin wrote:
> > I agree with Matt Jensen about the greater importance
> > of the first amendment. I also believe that my view, or
> > his view, or the government's view, or the population's
> > view of the relative importance of the various parts of
> > the Bill of Rights is tremendously irrelevant.
> I agree it's irrelevant. I was just playing Ken's game of "Who's stronger,
> Superman or the Hulk?". (Or as the kids say these days, I think, Alien vs.
> > If a whole amendment can disappear from practical effect,
> > from clever interpretation and arguments about its
> > danger, modern relevance, and unimportance, what
> > will happen to some aspect of free speech when these
> > same kind of arguments are turned against it?
> You're mixing apples and oranges. Someone might try a clever or even
> sneaky argument that you feel twists the meaning of freedom of speech.
> That in no way affects legal scholar's view of, say, the 3rd amendment:
> "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
> without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war,
> but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
> You could find a way to twist the 3rd amendment to apply to some modern
> situation, but the experts will dismiss it, because it's clearly talking
> about a situation experienced only by the 18th-Century colonists.
> The problem with the 2nd amendment is that there is not as much agreement
> on its meaning. Since the Constitution and amendments total only 40K or
> so, and since they were written two centuries ago, interpretation is
> necessary. And as you point out, vigilance is also necessary, to ensure
> interpretion is not misused.
> > If you believe that the second amendment is an
> > antiquated mistake, and you are a civil libertarian,
> > there is only one road for you. You must, for now,
> > root for an expansive view of the second amendment,
> > to keep our judiciary on the right course. At the same
> > time, you may opt to fight for its repeal.
> Okay, so what is your expansive view of the 3rd amendment, that makes it
> relevant today?
> -Matt Jensen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 14 2001 - 11:13:55 PDT