There are four basic reasons.
First, "freedom" is a buzzword for many people. The government schools teach that freedom is important, but they don't clearly teach what it is. Many people believe that some mysterious thing called "freedom" is good, but since they can't quite define it, they don't notice when they are losing it.
Second, to the extent that they understand freedom, most people consider it a secondary or tertiary value, well behind survival and comfort. When the government declares that internal or external security demands sacrificing freedom, this seems like a reasonable assertion to people with this mentality.
Third, many people consider freedom to be a means rather than an end. They see freedom as a tool to achieve happiness, not as something valuable in itself. If a loss of freedom does not effect their happiness, they never notice the loss.
Fourth, many people want freedom for themselves, but don't want to allow others to be free, because they don't trust others. If the government declares that certain people with criminal tendencies need to be repressed, or that certain people need to be controlled for their own good, these assertions seem perfectly credible and rational to these people. They fail to realize that tolerating tyranny for others eventually kills all freedom.
It can be seen, in summary, that confusion, cowardice, and contentment are the great enemies of freedom. Since these attributes are common in modern America, freedom is eroding.
Court: No Right to Assisted Suicide
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that terminally ill people do not have a constitutional right to doctor- assisted suicide. The court upheld laws in New York and Washington state that make it a crime for doctors to give life-ending drugs to mentally competent but terminally ill patients who no longer want to live. Lower courts had overturned the statutes.
— AP NewsBrief by MARCO LEAVITT, Tuesday, July 1, 1997
— AP NewsBrief by MARCO LEAVITT, Tuesday, July 1, 1997
— AP NewsBrief by MARCO LEAVITT, Tuesday, June 24, 1997
— AP NewsBrief by PETE BRUSH, Thursday, July 10, 1997
|The Very Definition
Sam Aurelius Milam III
During the debate over the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, much thought was given to the problem of limiting the powers of government.1 The separation of powers embodied in the Constitution was proclaimed by the Federalists as a necessary part of the best available solution. The Constitution also created an interdependence of the separate branches of government which was intended to prevent any one branch from dominating any other. The Federalists asserted that the exclusive exercise of legislative, executive, and judicial powers by different branches of government which were nevertheless dependent upon one another for the exercise of those powers would cause the powers of the government to be inherently self-limiting.2
Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution established two important properties of the U.S. government. The first is that only the Congress was given legislative powers. The second is that the Congress consists only of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Although the Congress has a very general power to pass any necessary and proper law,3 it cannot reassign legislative powers in violation of Article 1, Section 1. No such law, however necessary it might seem, would be a proper law. The only power Congress is authorized to delegate is with regard to the appointment of lower level public officers.4 Powers not specifically given to the Congress are generally forbidden by the Tenth Amendment. Since the Constitution gave legislative powers only to the Congress, since the Congress consists of only the Senate and the House of Representatives, and since the Congress doesn't have the power to create other bodies with legislative powers, it follows that no other institution can have legislative powers.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution specified that only the President has the power to enforce laws. This delegation of power was broadened somewhat by Article 2, Section 3. That the President can delegate his enforcement power within the executive branch of government is generally accepted. However, he cannot delegate it outside of the executive branch, which is the only branch endowed with executive powers.
The executive branch also exercises judicial powers. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is only one of many examples. The NRC initiates its own investigations and accusations, issues its own summonses, conducts its own hearings, and passes judgment in actions to which it is itself a party. The Code of Federal Regulations contains many examples of such powers.
Code of Federal Regulations, a body of unconstitutional executive law,
openly acknowledges this unconstitutional judicial aspect of the NRC, and
even commands a judicial reverence for it.
One aspect of the legislative power exercised by the courts is openly acknowledged by Black's Law Dictionary.
The courts also exercise an executive power which is tacitly accepted, and which is an unremarked part of many definitions of judicial matters.
Executive and legislative powers exercised by the judicial branch of government cannot possibly be constitutional. As we were warned over 200 years ago, such accumulations of power constitute the very definition of tyranny.
According to James Madison, a staunch advocate of the Constitution, the accumulation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
• My thanks to Sir Donald the Elusive for paying the production costs of this newsletter.
• My thanks to Lady Jan the Voluptuous for her ongoing editorial assistance and for her countless other efforts in support of this newsletter and of its editor.
• My thanks to Sir James the Bold for his ongoing editorial assistance.
• My thanks to Elliot, of N. Merrick, NY, for his recent letter to the editor. That letter is too long to print here, but I appreciate his comments. I'll provide a copy of Elliot's letter upon request.
Net Watcher's News
Five Reasons Why Computers Must Be Female:
5. Nobody but their creator understands their internal logic.
4. Even your smallest mistakes are immediately committed to memory for future reference.
3. The native language used to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else.
2. The message, "Bad command or filename," is about as informative as, "If you don't know why I'm mad at you, then I'm certainly not going to tell you."
1. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.
— Silicon Valley Bob
On the Road with Buffalo
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, fax, e-mail, zmodem, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.
Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.
Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other publications. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.
Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and postage stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives, or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor