home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!phil
- From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
- Newsgroups: ba.politics
- Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
- Message-ID: <1993Jan2.101139.808@netcom.com>
- Date: 2 Jan 93 10:11:39 GMT
- References: <1992Dec30.075339.10884@netcom.com> <13745@optilink.COM>
- Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
- Lines: 44
-
- In article <13745@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
- >>And which is why I assert that we have inalienable rights
- >>that are NOT granted by an act of Congress, but are superior
- >>to Congress (which is why I was against ERA -- what Congress
- >>gives, it then has a basis for taking away).
- >>
- >Huh? Perhaps someone can help me out here, but I thought that
- >the ERA was supposed to be a constitutional ammendment, and
- >thus, Congress would be required to abide by it.
-
- Ah, well, no. You do know that in most laws passed in the are of "equal
- rights" that Congress clearly exempts itself?
-
- To concede that someone can "grant" you equal rights is to concede that they
- have that power in the first place. Congress does not. All that Congress
- has done is to take rights from various groups of people, and "give"
- entitlements to other groups of people (at the costs of rights of yet
- other people).
-
- For example, look at the latest "PC(tm) buzz" about how the Fortune 500
- companies have so few women CEO's. So, after Congress "gets" ERA, it looks
- around a few years later and says, "Aha, not enough women! That MUST be
- unconstitutional". So they run out and pass another fascist law, perhaps
- like companies must have 50% of their managers in each level be women.
-
- Or some other shit.
-
- In the long run, the ONLY thing that Congress has to "abide" by is our
- inalienable right to take them out and shoot them, as per:
-
- That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
- deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That
- whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is
- the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
- government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
- powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
- safety and happiness.
-
-
-
- --
- I believe Gennifer Flowers.
-
- These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
-