Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!crew
From: crew@CS.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew)
Subject: Re: Amendments
In-Reply-To: ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu's message of 28 Apr 91 06:11:19 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Apr28.120019.18645@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Dept.
References: <STANTON.91Apr19151248@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
	<4364.2816d635@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
	<1991Apr26.141044.7544@alphalpha.com>
	<1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 12:00:19 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes:
>> It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since
>> once a CC is convened it's open season on the Constitution and *anything*
>> can be changed.
> 
> No, it should *really* be noted that this option is only avoided like
> the plague by lawyers, ACLU-types, and other stupid liberals who want
> to save us from ourselves ...
> 
> Good heavens! The idea of the unwashed masses of the American public
> having any actual say-so in how they are governed? I think a CC would
> be a great idea, with real people -- not politicians, not lawyers, not

what makes you think that if a CC is called that they're going to let 
"real people" into it?  Who decides who goes to this convention anyway?
Somehow I won't be surprised if it turns out to be a bunch of lawyers...

> ... ACLU'ers 

hmmm... if it were just to be the ACLU'ers, I don't think I'd mind the
carte blanche aspect of this...  But that seems unlikely in today's
political climate...

--
Roger Crew                                        ``I kill Optimax...''
Usenet:    {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!crew
Internet:  crew@CS.Stanford.EDU
