Re: Clipper Death Threat

-->> >
 -->> >  -->3.  Why we have a right to strong encryption.
 -->> >
 -->> > Actually, our constitution does not say we have the right to private
 -->> > communication.  It would be nice, but it's not a right.
 -->
 -->The Supreme Court disagrees with David in cases ranging from
 -->NAACP v. Alabama to Griswold v. Connecticut.
 -->

Perhaps so, but the Supreme Court saying something does not a "right" make. 
 Free speech is a right which does NOT allow anyone to say anything they 
wish, and it does not guarantee privacy from government interferance so long 
as there is probable cause for law enforcement to interfere.

Remember as well, you must ASK the government for permission to sue it, 
which is how something gets to the Supreme Court, after possibly years of 
expenses.

Not to mention that many agencies don't NEED ANY approval to take actions. 
 Notice the FBI/CIA recent mole... they have not been found guilty, yet 
every belonging has been forfeited.  Of course, everyone's "pretty sure" 
they're guilty, but ...


***************************************************************
               Lyled@pentagon-emh9.army.mil
 - My opinions are mine alone-
***************************************************************

David Lyle writes:

>  -->The Supreme Court disagrees with David in cases ranging from
>  -->NAACP v. Alabama to Griswold v. Connecticut.
>  -->
> 
> Perhaps so, but the Supreme Court saying something does not a "right" make. 

Sure it does. Because the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in a
way that's binding on all American government.

Take voting for example. The Constitution doesn't mention your right
to vote. The Supreme Court says your right to vote is implied by the
Constitution. Now, are you ready to assert that the Supreme Court is wrong
about this?

I thought not.


--Mike

Mike G has been arguing that the Supreme Court's assertion makes something
the law of the land, as if it had been written into the Constitution (e.g.
voting rights).

However, Mike knows as well as anyone that the S.C. is a 4-D function and
that what is true for one location of the S.C. in
time/space/composition/subject-matter is not necessarily true for another
point in that 4-space.

EG: Blackmun has just come out asserting that he now categorically opposes
the death penalty.

Thus, it's a variable question as to what are and are not our rights, no
matter what the S.C. says.  Some day they may decide that voting is not a
right (they already don't allow convicted felons to vote).

--Alan

> Mike G has been arguing that the Supreme Court's assertion makes something
> the law of the land, as if it had been written into the Constitution (e.g.
> voting rights).

Let's be precise. What I'm saying is that what the Supreme Court says the
Constitution means is what's binding.
 
> EG: Blackmun has just come out asserting that he now categorically opposes
> the death penalty.
 
Which is irrelevant, since the Court hasn't changed its institutional
stance on the death penalty.

Sure, the Court changes its mind, but it doesn't do so very often.


--Mike