Nelson and all,

I appreciate the efforts, but this must be pointed out. Warning:
This email is relevant to the somewhat off-topic subject thread
at hand, and a bit wordy, although I kept it conversational for
ease of reading.

Frankly, "Promote the general welfare" has no meaningful legal
value. Years ago, I inquired about it to a lawyer who told me
that it has never been cited in a Constitutional argument.

The whole preamble is so broad and unspecific that to find out
what any of its phrases mean, you have to consult case law of how
these sentiments were interpreted in actual court cases.

The same is true of the Bill of Rights, which is far more
specific, yet still ambiguous. For example, to paraphrase:

Congress shall pass no law restricting the freedom of religion.
Sounds good, but what has that meant in practice?

Over a century ago, the government of Utah outlawed the practice
of polygamy, although many Mormons living there were practicing
polygamy, and claiming that it was sanctioned by their religion.
This unusual religious practice had been permitted until Utah
finally banned it under military threat from the Federal
government.

That wasn't unconstitutional, right? After all, Congress didn't
pass a law that restricted freedom of religion. The Utah state
government did. The federal government essentially forced the
Utah government to pass the restrictive law.

So, the Constitution was obeyed, in letter if not in spirit, but
freedom of religion wasn't protected.

"Foul play", you say. So let's rewrite the sentence to read,
"Congress shall neither pass nor cause to be passed, any law
restricting the freedom of religion."

That should do it, right? Well, didn't you hear about the
American Indian tribe that was forbidden from using peyote in
their ancient religious ceremonies? It was forbidden through
Federal authority, but did Congress pass a law, or was it a
bureaucratic ruling from the Drug Enforcement Administration, or
was it one of those presidential prerogatives that require
nothing more than the stroke of a pen?

That Constitutional protection of religion gets even more
slippery. "Congress shall pass no law restricting freedom of
religion," but what about laws restricting the practice of
religion? "Aren't they the same thing", you ask? Is the first
amendment saying that I can believe whatever I want, but can only
practice whatever the government allows?

Yes, you can practice whatever you're allowed, subject to review
and revocation at any time. And the Federal government has
another trump card:

My religion, the Church of Peter, forbids me to pay more than 10
percent of my income in taxes to the heathen government. I made
my case by quoting from the Old Testament: "Beware of the king
who will take one of every 10 of your sheep."

The government agreed. I don't have to pay all of my taxes,
Social Security, and the rest, so long as I'm willing to practice
my religion in prison. Alas, the government refuses to recognize
the Church of Peter.

I've paid all of my taxes, stayed out of prison, and I've seen
the light. After all, The Constitution doesn't have a list of
officially recognized religions. Even if it did, the Church of
Peter hadn't been founded yet. Who is to say what a religion is?
That has been left to the courts and the legislators. If they say
my church is a ploy, my church is a ploy. A passage in the
Constitution per se doesn't protect me any more than that passage
in the Bible would protect me.

But no court would find that Islam is not a religion. So how come
a religious Muslim in America is not allowed to practice his
religion by marrying more than one wife?

Answer: He can believe in his religion; he can practice a lot of
it, too, but he can't practice all of it.

As I would have been free to practice the Church of Peter in
prison, Muslims in prison are free to practice Islam. In fact,
they must be served kosher meals, in respect of their religious
rights. Why kosher food for a Muslim murderer, but not multiple
wives for a law-abiding Muslim? Because the court said so. The
answer is not in the Constitution. It is in the verdicts of
courts.

A Muslim prisoner successfully argued that not having kosher
meals was a violation of his Constitutionally protected right to
practice his religion. A court agreed. So why didn't he argue
that not being allowed to visit Mecca, an essential duty for a
Muslim, is also a violation of his right? The answer is that a
court would have said, "Too bad."
Nothing in the Constitution says, "Too bad," and nothing prevents
a future inmate from making such a claim, nor a future jury from
agreeing with that inmate.

Our legal system is built on analogy and precedent, starting with
the Constitution. The line of argument starting from Kosher meals
and ending with furloughs to Mecca is not as long as you may
think. The slippery slope is very real, which explains why
resistance to polygamy is so strong. The progression of arguments
might go like this:

Freedom of Religion - A Muslim man is permitted to marry two
wives.

Religious Discrimination - Mormon men are permitted to marry two
wives.

Equal Rights - All men can marry two wives.

Sexual Discrimination - All women can marry two husbands.

Analogy - As long as you've got two women in a marriage with one
man, why can't you have two women married to each other, without
the man? After all, if the husband dies, the widows would be, for
all practical purposes, married to each other without a man.

Slippery Slope - And, if two women can get married, why not two
men? Why not three men? Why not brother and sister? Why not
Father and daughter?

Getting back to "Promote the general welfare", I've heard it used
as part of an argument for an expansion of the welfare state.
I've also heard it used by a conservative candidate who was
running for senator of California. He argued that the Federal
government is only authorized to promote the general welfare, not
to provide the general welfare. So, what does it actually mean?

It actually means whatever the courts say it actually means. The
same is true for all your freedoms. The whole Constitution could
be deleted and replaced with the sentence, "Work it out in the
courts." That is what we do anyway. And that is what they do in
England and France, which have just as many civil liberties as we
do. Legal arguments for what should be done refer to successful
legal arguments for what should be done, which had referred to
even earlier successful arguments for what should be done, , and
so forth.

Given, unless you are an expert on Constitutional law, it is
convenient to refer to the sound bites in the Constitution or the
Declaration of Independence. But these slogans are not useful in
resolving particular issues with any kind of authority.

One more quick note: The first amendment protects freedom of
speech and of the press. A very narrow interpretation could
conclude that those terms do not cover this email, firstly,
because it is text, not speech; and secondly, because it is
electronic, not from a printing press. For that matter, it
wouldn't even cover hard copy if I printed it out on my laser
printer.

On the other hand, a broad interpretation could say that the
protection covers all forms of expression, whether literary,
artistic, emotional and so forth. But you don't have to look hard
to realize that this interpretation isn't the law of the land.
Did you know that dancing in a bar in New York City is illegal?
Something having to do with a cabaret license. No smoking, no
dancing and, who knows what's down the pike? No drinking?

Prohibition was unconstitutional, but that was merely a hurdle
for the enlightened reformers. They added an amendment to make it
Constitutional. Several years later, of course, we were even more
enlightened and wrote up another amendment that made prohibition
unconstitutional again.

The Constitution is not a concrete barricade. It is a speed bump.
The Constitution doesn't stop laws from being passed, but it
makes us slow down before rolling over it.

Thank you all for indulging me as I exercise my right to
electronic data transmission, while I've still got it,
Peter Seymour


,At 02:14 PM 2/29/04 -0800, Nelson Blachman wrote:
>Albert,
>
>  To switch to a more informative mode, I'm offering here the
text of the
>Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America,
adopted in
>1787 with ratification completed in 1788:
>
>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union,
>establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common
>defense,
>promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to
>ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for
>the United
>States of America.
>
>It sets forth the six basic purposes of our government, which
include
>promotion of the general welfare.  I hope we Americans can all
agree that
>that's one reason ours has become a great country and we
shouldn't be shy
>about participating in its benefits as well as accepting our
>responsibilities as citizens.
>
>Nelson Blachman
>Physicist, Oakland, Calif.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Albert Ruel" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 1:28 PM
>Subject: What goes around
>
>
>> What is most disappointing to me where the blind community is
concerned is
>> the vigor with which we eat our young.  Our status in life
would be so
>much
>> further advanced if only we could remember that the best way
to avoid
>> conflict and remain united in our efforts is to attack only
the issue and
>> not the person.  Important discussions like this are all too
often reduced
>> to name calling and sniping rather than opportunities to
educate and move
>> forward.  I could have learned so much from this discussion,
but sadly I
>> only saw more evidence of our greatest barrier to future
success.
>>
>> Thx, Albert Ruel, Victoria, BC, Canada
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Nelson Blachman" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: What goes around
>>
>>
>> George,
>>
>>   I hope that, when you get to high school, you'll be able to
attend a
>good
>> American history course.  There you'll learn that you've
quoted from the
>> Declaration of Independence rather than from the Constitution,
and you'll
>> have a chance to memorize the Preamble to the Constitution,
which mentions
>> the several purposes of government.  In college maybe you'll
later on be
>> able to attend a good course on economics and learn about the
>> interdependence of business, government, and workers.  As an
adult you'll
>> then have a wider, deeper understanding of society, and you'll
understand
>> how governments have to place limits on the freedom of
businesses to do
>just
>> as they might please, just as the Constitution places limits
on what our
>> government may do.  You'll also learn the difference between
despotic
>> governments, such as those of North Jorea and
>> Cuba, and socialist governments like those in Sweden et al.
>>
>>   Good luck.
>>
>> --Nelson Blachman
>> Oakland, Calif.s
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "George Cassell" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 1:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: What goes around
>>
>>
>> > I don't recall where, in the Constitution of the United
States, its said
>> > that any of us were to be guaranteed anything, other than
the right to
>> life,
>> > liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And the right to
happiness,
>itself,
>> > was not guaranteed either -- only the pursuit thereof.
>> >
>> > We are not guaranteed jobs or salaries.  And no company
doing business
>in
>> > the United States, is mandated to create or sustain jobs for
any of us.
>> > Their obligation is to provide whatever products or services
they do
>> > provide, and create a profit for their owners.
>> >
>> > If you decided to go into business for yourself, you would
be doing so
>to
>> > create personal wealth; not to create  jobs for others,
simply to
>provide
>> > them with paychecks, whether or not they deserve that money.
That is
>what
>> > the communist program was all about, and why it has been
abandoned,
>except
>> > for Cuba and North Korea, and we all know what a dismal
failure they
>are.
>> > How many of us would like to trade places with them?
>> >
>> > If there is a divide between the have's and have's not, then
it is
>> incumbent
>> > upon those who have not to improve their own lot in life, as
have the
>> > have's.  We all have the same opportunity to a decent
education in our
>> > tax-supported schools, right through high school.
Thereafter, one can
>> > attend college, if one so desires, by working one's way
through, getting
>a
>> > scholarship, grant, student loan, or whatever it takes to
put one's self
>> > through school.  In so doing, one prepares himself for the
work force,
>> able
>> > to compete in life, and not simply being dragged along by
the blood,
>sweat
>> > and tears of others.
>> >
>> > Yes, there are those of us who are "disadvantaged."  But, by
joining
>> > together, we, too, can provide for ourselves, utilizing the
talents and
>> > abilities of others in our group, while providing our own
abilities as
>> well,
>> > thus making the sum of the whole greater than the individual
parts.
>> >
>> > There is too much whining going on in America, and not
enough of the
>> > personal responsibility that made America great in the first
place.  As
>> John
>> > F. Kennedy once said, "Ask not what your country can do for
you; ask
>what
>> > you can do for your country."  Those words are as true
today, as the day
>> > they were first spoken in January of 1961.
>> >
>> > -- George
>> >
>> > Keep up-to-date with the latest news and goings-on in the
blindness and
>> > visually-impaired communities.  Visit Blind World, The
Online Magazine
>for
>> > the Blind and Visually-Impaired.
>> >
>> > You'll find Blind World easily accessible at:
http://www.blindworld.net
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Steve Hoad" <[log in to unmask]>
>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 4:09 AM
>> > Subject: Re: What goes around
>> >
>> >
>> > posting from Windsor Maine;
>> > Steve Hoad
>> >
>> >
>> > Good points in this article cover a real fact,
>> > Currently in America the gap between rich and poor is
continually
>> widening.
>> > The top ten percent of our country's incomes are averaging
about
>$900,000
>> > (nine hundred thousand) and the bottom 20 percent are at
about $8600
>> (eight
>> > thousand six hundred.
>> >
>> > That's the rub,
>> > when this wheel of import/export/export/import continues
around the
>> richest
>> > come out on top and the poorest get rolled over.
>> >
>> > This definitely requires a public policy shift! at the
Federal level so
>> our
>> > real "working class" can still exist.  Not everybody can
invent
>something,
>> > not everybody wants to do a "think" job, and many don't have
the
>capacity
>> to
>> > do so.
>> >
>> > Steve, (off the soapbox now) Hoad
>> > from a state where the poverty is apparent,
>> > Maine
>> >
>> >
>> > VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>> > To join or leave the list, send a message to
>> > [log in to unmask]  In the body of the message,
simply type
>> > "subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the
quotations.
>> >  VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
>> > http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>> To join or leave the list, send a message to
>> [log in to unmask]  In the body of the message,
simply type
>> "subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the
quotations.
>>  VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
>> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
>>
>>
>> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>> To join or leave the list, send a message to
>> [log in to unmask]  In the body of the message,
simply type
>> "subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the
quotations.
>>  VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
>> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
>>
>
>
>VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>To join or leave the list, send a message to
>[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message,
simply type
>"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the
quotations.
> VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html