Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell

At 11:01 PM 11/14/96 -0500, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:

>>> Thats
>>>what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts
>>>were extinguished.
>
>>Ah!  So you admit that these courts were "previously existing," huh?  Well, 
>>if that's the case, merely read the 9th and 10th amendments and tell me how 
>>you're so sure that "all previously existing courts were extinguished."
>
>I admit no such thing if you could understand logic you would
>realize that. There were pre-existing courts, those of King George.

Misleading.  And wrong.  Wrong, because existing state courts were not 
eliminated.  And misleading, because both "commonlaw" and "equity" courts 
were "those of King George."  At least, the judges were appointed by the 
King.  But the revolution merely meant that George no longer had the 
authority to appoint the judges; it does not mean that the courts were, 
themselves, eliminated as institutions.

>They were extingished. 

"Extinguished"?  Like a fire, or something like that?  You really need to 
start using more exact terminology.  I think you're trying to read a lot 
more into the US Constitution than was written into it.  In order to be able 
to claim that it had an effect, you need to document that effect.  Find the 
particular section which "extinguished" a court.  Moreover, you need to 
explain why you're ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, both of which make 
it clear that there was much continuity not affected by the Federal 
constitution.


>Had common law courts existed (they did not
>but for the sake of arguement I am indulging you in your fantasy) 

When did they not exist? Be very specific; are you referring to just 
America, or Britain as well?


>they would exist no longer.

You haven't documented this claim.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Jim appears to be arguing that the "common law" courts heis refering
to had judges appointed by the King. If so the right to appoint
judges to those posts passed to the US government under the treaty
of Paris. 

The Common Law in the UK was the kings law since the Norman conquest.
It is as any schoolboy knows judge made law. The doctrine of precedent
has become more and more prominent since the renaisance though, effectively
preventing judicial lawmaking except in areas where no law is believed
to exist.

As a system of government I don't think very much of the idea of a 
bunch of klansmen getting together to decide who they dislike. Sounds
much more like a lynch mob than a system of government to me. 

Since Browne couldn't even manage fourth place, despite the attentions
of the net it doesn't look as if the US people are particularly 
inclined to the libertarian view. Nader managed a vote about 20%
higher despite only running in a handful of states while Browne was
on the ballot in every state. Contrary to Bellsclaim that the state
is being challenged by libertarian and millitia ideas it looks to
me that the tide is flowing in the opposite direction if its flowing
at all.

	Phill

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> Since Browne couldn't even manage fourth place, despite the attentions
> of the net it doesn't look as if the US people are particularly 
> inclined to the libertarian view. Nader managed a vote about 20%
> higher despite only running in a handful of states while Browne was
> on the ballot in every state. Contrary to Bellsclaim that the state
> is being challenged by libertarian and millitia ideas it looks to
> me that the tide is flowing in the opposite direction if its flowing
> at all.

Your logic is flawed.  Most registered voters have never even heard of Browne.
Those who have are probably not familiar with his views.  There are definitely
more people who have heard of Nader than Browne.  It's easy to understand why
this logic is incorrect: If Bob ran for president and the only people who voted
for him were three of his friends, this does not necessarily imply that there
are only three people in the entire country who have never heard of him.  It
does imply that Bob needs a lot more exposure.

If Browne's views were not popular, then he would have not been able to get on
the ballot in all 50 states.  Note that the libertarian party is the only
non-mainstream party in history to get a candidate registered in all 50 states
twice in a row.  It's also the third largest political party in the country.
The election turnouts for libertarian candidates for for senate and
representatives were published in many newspapers along with the democratic
and republican turnouts.  It was the only non-demopublican party listed.

Mark
- -- 
finger -l for PGP key
PGP encrypted mail prefered.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMoyiDCzIPc7jvyFpAQHe5wf+JqDGzgzAcdBmYoBf5/zOOk6OcyegPRE9
xodMzK58luKVSsq6aJIq11Q3XNeiKBdN9gkxHyEn3h8Xphappko+tZEqQp4SHcb3
HRNA872YFNU58ZWjTKOCRWteWEw3OCoEPq9GIQDf6exOwlVwJZ2qti+uG4ZyQoz1
pnO4nl2SW1zq/5T3Tq49O60slqxE3yFbcEQq75ZRKIISxDyCFLw6uL0hsg5lHYTi
m8V2BQX/STGC981IvxDtoNYsBMVj2EyZChVS0wqHmfn5b/KexisaeB1OO8Nq/DJ/
m5X1s3mk5gfVwwwHLIX84VsxQr/TrGTiV+GICOfc/miCUylGG/ZAFw==
=gisl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>Note that the libertarian party is the only
>non-mainstream party in history to get a candidate registered in all 50 states
>twice in a row. 

Untrue, Ross Perot managed it and gained ten times the votes.
Also the natural law party managed it, a fact which kida points
to the significance of the achievement. 

>It's also the third largest political party in the country.

Also untrue, the Reform party is a considerably more significant 
force. 

	Phill

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> >Note that the libertarian party is the only
> >non-mainstream party in history to get a candidate registered in all 50
> >states
> >twice in a row. 
> 
> Untrue, Ross Perot managed it and gained ten times the votes.
> Also the natural law party managed it, a fact which kida points
> to the significance of the achievement. 

Ross Perot isn't a political party.  The Natural Law Party most certainly did
not get registered in all 50 states twice in a row.  This is only their second
election and they only got registered in 36 states in 1992.  Ross Perot may
have gained ten times the votes, but he did it with 100 times the money.  He
also accepted matching funds.

> 
> >It's also the third largest political party in the country.
> 
> Also untrue, the Reform party is a considerably more significant 
> force. 

The Libertarian party has branches in all 50 states and has run candidates for
the senate and representatives.  The Libertarian party's homepage does say
that they are the third largest political party and the Reform party's page
does not seem to have any info on number of members or anything that would
contradict the Libertarian party's claim.

Mark
- -- 
finger -l for PGP key
PGP encrypted mail prefered.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMozEsCzIPc7jvyFpAQHwvAgAgsY/u51gi5Di9UkgoT3YrghHjRyLq7Aw
lxeFPzkZ2WcNGqE8Hs8p8K0zf/sykANoHiO7hA4afTAKgAu2MtIRgiGTyxEz186Z
wmfKohkYLDiDWchXHKdjU/u9ll+jmlH2Frnc29baaSG+mWDEKWIB4cQkZHL0hD/c
CWXX4Acyi1kHC/AIM1TKDne2Taf7JMOzOXiRgR31P94zwjZyQ3QcfPWfG99Yk/gn
lp9drlH7jIM/8KciJh1O1/Kfuu75uitAyk/VDXJET10FtVVJa5h+YU/82AYlwuNk
jHEr8GUxkkQyN+aXLWW4Pjvc+nrlM50D41DTgHPJ8/rf8ATYORfcNQ==
=vUos
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> >It's also the third largest political party in the country.

> Also untrue, the Reform party is a considerably more significant 
> force. 

     Third Largest != third most significant force. Most people who 
vote Perot are either Repubs or Democrats, not "Reform Party" members. 

     In the 2000 election, were there are no incumbents, Perot's numers
will be about the same as the Libertarians, and if Perot doesn't make 
the ballot (either death or too sick) the reform party won't even be 
on the map.

     Perot doesn't have that many supporters, just more people who 
have heard of him, so when they get to the Voting Booth, they looked 
an Clinton and almost threw up, then looked at Dole, but couldn't 
get their hand to their nose, so they punched the next name they
recognized. Perot.  


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

Petro is right to point out that third largest party does
not mean being the third most influential. But by any standards
Perot is much more influential than an Libertarian candidate.
Perot has managed to get his views onto the national agenda.,
Browne has not.  The only mainstream party to have been in
any measure influenced by libertarian ideas is the Republicans
who are also the party of extreeme social authoritarianism,
even if they don't believe in it they have to fawn on Pat
Robertson's Christian Coalition to get through the primaries.

As for what happens in 2000 it does not appear that the
Republicans will have extricated itself from the religious
right's grip. This will probaly mean that they end up putting
up another compromise candidate like Dole. With Clinton sitting
so far to the right its very difficult for the Republicans
to find any response.

Unless something happens to change things I don't see any
likelyhood of change the next time round. The only factor
likely to change anything would be for Congress to take
campaign finance reform seriously. I doubt that that is going 
to happen because the last Congress sold favours more openly
than any since 1876. During the Communications Decency Act
politicing I was somewhat suprised to find out the cost
of the lobbying effort, after all it shouldn't take more than a 
few plane tickets to send the right people down to DC. Then
I found out that the main cost was buying into the committee
system to get a hearing. I'm not saying that one side or
the other is worse but the tone of the Congress was pretty much
set by Newt Gingrtich accepting an inaugural bribe of a couple
of million from Murdoch, alledged advance payment for a book
that was pulped.

There are good reasons why the rest of the world tends to
turn off when told about America as the "home of Democracy".

	Phill