[Paddlewise] Constitutional Law

>
>> Both sides of this issue, like any other, have rights proscribed by
>> existing law.  Specialty laws that would apply to only one party or in such
>> a specific case are, in IMHO, clearly political or driven by special
>> interests.
>
	I have to blow the whistle on text: "Proscribed" means excluded or
prohibited. I think the writer means "prescribed." The Fourteenth Amendment
affords "equal protection." All law applies to all parties. Laws are ALWAYS
politically motivated. "Polis" means people. People form groups, elect
legislators, and enact laws in their interests. The US Constitution affords
rights which cannot be abridged by the "tyranny of the majority"
--integration in the South being the oft cited example. 

	While the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights provides for free
expression, peaceful assembly and petition of government for redress of
grievances, no Constitutional provision affords the right to obstruct
lawful commerce on the ground that the obstructor finds it reprehensible. 

	I don't want to see whaling. But I question the efficacy of inflammatory
rhetoric and unlawful action. When persons claim they have a
"constitutional right" to obstruct lawful commerce they lose credibility,
and their cause suffers accordingly. 

	Exercise your Constitutional franchise. Write your representatives. 



______________________________
George Bergeron, Secretary '99
Oswego Heritage Council
http://www.europa.com/~heritage/
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************