>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Yes to 'NO" >Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 17:59:32 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >This is the only word from me in this missive--although I agree with >everything else. The kind mention of "Ain't Nobody's Business..." >(www.consenting.org) by "bob" is Robert Anton Wilson. > >When it comes to "No law," those of you who have read "Ain't..." know that I >put "NO LAW" in 100 point type across two pages of the book. If I could ask >Congress but one question, it would be: "Just what is it about the word 'no' >that you do not understand?" > >Enjoy, > >Peter > >Thank you, Bob. Putting me in the company of Nat Hentoff is praise, indeed. > >Enjoy, > >Peter > > > >My Man of the Century > > > >By Nat Hentoff > > > >Saturday, January 1, 2000; Page A37 > > > >In June 1789, James Madison presented to Congress his draft of those > >amendments to the Constitution that would, in part, become the Bill of > >Rights. > > > >"The most valuable in the whole list," he told Congress, was: "No state shall > >violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the > >trial by jury in criminal cases." > > > >It was not enough, he insisted, to provide protections of individual > >liberties against violations by the federal government. Individual states had > >indeed adopted declarations of rights, but, Madison pointed out, "repeated > >violations of these parchment barriers have been committed in every State. > > > >"The greatest danger to liberty," he added, "was not found in either the > >executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the > >people, operating by the majority against the minority." > > > >The House adopted that clause, but Madison failed to get the necessary > >two-thirds majority in the Senate. > > > >It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 that a key was > >provided to protect individuals from the states as well as the federal > >government. Section 1: > > > >"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, > >without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction > >the equal protection of the laws." > > > >Nonetheless, for many years after the amendment's passage, the Supreme Court > >ruled that the Bill of Rights limited only the federal government. > >Accordingly, each state had its own definitions of those rights. > > > >Incrementally, the Supreme Court began to follow Madison's desires in the > >early part of the 20th century. After a few provisions of the Bill of Rights > >had been applied, in 1937 -- as Linda Monk writes in her valuable "The Bill > >of Rights: A User's Guide" -- Justice Benjamin Cardozo, in Palko v. > >Connecticut, proposed the subsequent test for whether a section of the Bill > >of Rights should be applied to the states. To qualify, that particular right > >had to be "fundamental" and essential to "a scheme of ordered liberty." > > > >The one justice who passionately kept trying to persuade his colleagues that > >the entire Bill of Rights be incorporated into state laws was Hugo Black. > > > >In his dissent in Adamson v. California (1947) -- concerning the Fifth > >Amendment's right against self-incrimination in a trial -- Black spoke of the > >"human evils that have emerged from century to century wherever excessive > >power is sought by the few at the expense of the many. In my judgment, no > >nation can lose their liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours > >survives." > > > >Therefore, he continued, "I would follow what I believe was the original > >purpose of the 14th Amendment -- to extend to all the people of the nation > >the complete protection of the Bill of Rights" through due process of law. > > > >As for only selective incorporation, Black -- emphatically, as was his custom > >-- said: "To hold that the Court can determine what, if any, provisions of > >the Bill of Rights will be enforced, and if so to what degree, is to > >frustrate the great design of a written Constitution." > > > >James Madison would have been greatly pleased. > > > >With Black pushing the court, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause>was > >incorporated (in a majority decision by Black earlier in 1947), followed by > >the right to a public trial; protection from unreasonable searches and > >seizures; and the exclusionary rule (which states that illegally obtained > >evidence cannot be admitted at a trial). > > > >Also, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment; the right to counsel in > >non-capital felonies and then imprisonable misdemeanor cases; the right > >against self-incrimination; the right to an impartial jury and a speedy > >trial; the right to trial by jury in non-petty criminal cases; and the right > >against being placed in double jeopardy. > > > >Not yet applied to the states is the right to a trial by jury in civil >cases; > >the right to a grand jury indictment; and the prohibition of excessive bail > >and fines. And, under the Third Amendment to the Bill of Rights, the > >government can still quarter troops in your home. > > > >Justice Black was never without a blue paperback copy of the Constitution. > >When a liberty was threatened, he would slam the Constitution on his desk and > >-- quoting the first line of the Bill of Rights, "There shall be no law" -- > >he would thunder: "No law means no law!" > > > >A portrait of Hugo Black ought to be hung in every legislative, executive and > >judicial office in the land. And in newspaper offices. > > > > > >© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company > > >[I cdn't agree more heartily. Black has sat in honor among >my personal pantheon of heroes for a long long time. >Douglas and Brennan and a few >others also really upheld the Bill of Rights, but nobody >ever articulated the basic pernt--"No law means no law"-- >as eloquently and simply as Hugo Black.He also >said once in a speech at an ACLU dinner something >sorta like :Some of my colleagues have made arguments >so ingenious that they almost convince me that >"no law" means "some laws" but I still think >no law means no law. (I wish I had the exact >words of that speech....) >BTW, it wasn't just the slave-owners who >argued for Amendment 9, which LIMITS >the feds to the powers ennumerated >specifically and reserves all else >to the States and the people. John Adams, who wrote >the law abolishing slavery in Massachusetts, >defended Amdnt 9 long and eloquently on his usual >grounds:the more checks-and-balances the >better, because power can never be limited >and hemmed in too much. I think Clinton >and his Czar have proven old John's >fears were justifiedl. --bob] > >[PS I think Hentoff's book *Free Speech for >Me but Not For Thee* one of the two best >books on civil liberties in our time. >The other,of course:Peter McWilliams' >*Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do* --bob] > > >mark@cruzio.com > > > >We do not realize what tremendous power the structure of >an habitual language has. It is no exaggeration to say that >it enslaves us through the mechanism of semantic reactions >and that the structure which a language exhibits, and impresses >upon us, is automatically projected upon the world around us... > >All our advances are going very slowly, very painfully and >haltingly, because the new work in science, the Einstein >and the new quantum theories included, is all of a >non-elementalistic structure, while our daily languages are >elementalistic and absolutistic and twist pathologically >our habits of "thought" and semantic reactions. >Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity > > >Coinnigh an lasagne in airde! > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: