               (Miscellaneous Internet Libernet Reprints)
        
                         Editor's Introduction:
        
            These reprints reprints are from Libernet mail-list
        postings which individually appeared in one of the
        daily Libernet batch mailings.  When one participates
        in the Libernet mail-list, a policy file is sent
        stating: "ATTRIBUTION: Libernet messages are frequently
        reprinted in other publications, along with an
        acknowledgement of the posting party.  If you do not
        wish this to happen, please indicate so in your
        posting.  Otherwise, it is assumed that all postings to
        Libernet may be reproduced provided ackowledgement of
        the author is given."  It is this paragraph that
        "authorizes" this reprint.  If the posting has a
        copyright and has distribution restrictions, their
        terms are retained and published below and adhered to.
        
            If you want to subscribe to Libernet, send email to
        libernet-request@dartmouth.edu and follow the
        instructions you receive in reply.
        
                                Contents
        
        The titles that follow have been created or copied by
        the editor for ShareDebate International.
        
        * Utah Lawmakers Lead Charge Against D.C.
          [Quick leap instructions: do a find for "Entry-1"
        
        * Introduction to Libertarianism
          [Quick leap instructions: do a find for "Entry-2"
        
        * Laissez Faire Books
          [Quick leap instructions: do a find for "Entry-3"
        
        * ACLU supports hush Rush Bill
          [Quick leap instructions: do a find for "Entry-4"
        
        * Global Warming Did Not Occur
          [Quick leap instructions: do a find for "Entry-5"
        
        * A new Bill of Rights worded to reflect what's
          actually happened to the original
          [Quick leap instructions: do a find for "Entry-6"
        
        * How to Argue with Liberals on Whether any Bill of
          Right is Obsolete
          [Quick leap instructions: do a find for "Entry-7"
        
                [Miscellaneous Libernet Posting Follows]
        
        ======================================================
                     Miscellaneous Libernet Entry-1
        ======================================================
        
        Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 16:24:22 PST
        From: Terry Liberty-Parker
        <rutgers!p49.f91.n382.z1.fidonet.org!Terry.Liberty-
        Parker@Dartmouth.EDU>
        Subject: Succession? (Xpost LEGAL_LAW)
        To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU
        
        X-Fido-Echo: LIBERTY
        To: Libernet
        Date:  3 Mar 94  08:04:08
        
        * Forwarded by Terry Liberty-Parker (1:382/91.49)
        * Area : AEN_NEWS (AEN_NEWS)
        * Original Area: Legal
        * Original From: MARK OSTERMAN (1:285/27)
        
        The following article is republished without
        permission.  It was discovered on my Fax machine this
        morning and I have no clue as to the publisher, date,
        or source as I did not even get a polling number from
        the transmiting Fax.  It was in retyped form.  If
        anyone can verify, I would appreciate it.
        
                    WEST'S LEADERS WARN WASHINGTON:
                      GIVE US LIBERTY --- OR ELSE
        
                UTAH LAWMAKERS LEAD CHARGE AGAINST D.C.
        
                          By Christopher Smith
        
            DENVER -- Evoking Revolutionary War analogies, Utah
        politicians Sunday urged fellow Western state leaders
        to declare their independence from Uncle Sam.
        
            "We have to send another shot heard round the
        world," Utah House of Representative Speaker Rob
        Bishop, R-Brigham City, said in the keynote address of
        the Western States Summit held here.  "Washington D.C.,
        is 70 square miles surrounded by reality.  It's time
        reality took control."
        
            Sponsored by members of the Utah Legislature, the
        first-ever conference turned into a revival-style
        meeting of 200 ranchers, county commissioners, miners,
        legislators and recreationists from across the western
        United States who gave every speaker a standing ovation
        Sunday afternoon.  The prevailing them:  Break the
        bonds of federal "tyranny" and reclaim states' rights
        to govern.
        
            "Let's make the 20th Amendment not the most unused
        amendment but instead the most important section of the
        Bill of Rights," said Bishop, referring to the portion
        of the Constitution that reserves for states those
        powers not specifically delegated to the federal
        government.
        
            Bishop, a teacher of U.S. government from Brigham
        City, railed against federal arrogance.
        
            He chastised the federal government for restricting
        access to public lands, compared federal grazing
        reforms to the colonial Sugar Act tax and complained of
        state legislatures being forced to pay for federal
        programs they don't want.
        
            But just how the Western land "stake-holders," as
        they refer to themselves, will dam Uncle Sam's
        seemingly unending flood of regulatory edicts was
        drowned in the summit's opening day rhetoric.  Even
        Bishop acknowledged:  "Venting our frustrations is
        easy.  But to take action, it's gut- check time."
        
            Republican Rep. Met Johnson, leader of the Utah
        Legislature's so-called "cowboy caucus," says proposals
        for putting Uncle Sam back into his rightful
        constitutional place range from diplomacy to near-
        insurrection.
        
            "Some are gentle, some are a little spicy and some
        are red-hot," said the New Harmony rancher who
        coordinated the two-day summit session.
        
             Fellow Utah House members Mel Brown, R-Midvale,
        Bradley Johnson, R-Aurora, and Jim Gowans, D-Tooele,
        were organizing stakeholders for a videotaped message
        to President Clinton, extolling their complaints
        against Potomac rule.
        
            "We've become territories managed by a ruler as
        remote as the king of England," said Bill Howell of
        Price, director of the Southeastern Utah Association of
        Local Governments.  "We are witnessing a modern
        American tragedy."
        
            Facing a sea of cowboy hats, Garfield County
        Commissioner Louise Liston of Escalante told the
        audience that the culture of the rural West is being
        "systematically destroyed" by "nature lovers and
        suitcase saviors."
        
            "It comes down to wise use vs. no use," said the
        rancher's wife and retired schoolteacher.  "Let's not
        forget the most valuable resource on our lands is the
        human resource."
        
            A sample of some of the fight-back strategies being
        considered could be found in the back of the Stapleton
        Plaza Hotel Hallroom, which was adorned with flags from
        17 states west of the Mississippi.  There, the
        Bountiful based National Federal Lands Conference was
        selling books with titles such as Fight Back & Win:  A
        Rancher's Guide and The Toxicity of Environmentalism.
        
            Videotapes instructed "positive confrontational
        strategies" and "how to use the power of county
        government to restore private property rights."
        
            Several participants wore buttons supporting
        "Clinton- Free Zones."  A White House phone list was
        circulated encouraging stakeholders to join a "Fire
        Babbitt Phone-In," a campaign to oust Interior
        Secretary Bruce Babbitt.
        
            Today, attorneys will coach the local-government
        officials on drafting comprehensive land-use plans that
        specify local customs and cultures derived from the use
        of federal lands.  Participants also will grill U.S.
        Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah, Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming
        and Hank Brown of Colorado on Washington's ongoing
        remodeling of the traditional West.
        
        (Continued next message...)
        
         * CmpQwk 1.40j #360 * Washington, D.C.: America's
           work-free drug place!
        -+- Maximus 2.01wb
         + Origin: Three boxes keep us free: ballot, jury and
           cartridge (1:285/27)
        
        ======================================================
        
        Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 16:10:20 EST
        From: ccomp!root@eddie.mit.edu
        Subject: Succession? (Xpost LEGAL_LAW)
        To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU
        
        >
        >
        > X-Fido-Echo: LIBERTY
        > To: Libernet
        > Date:  3 Mar 94  08:04:08
        >
        > * Forwarded by Terry Liberty-Parker (1:382/91.49)
        > * Area : AEN_NEWS (AEN_NEWS)
        > * Original Area: Legal
        > * Original From: MARK OSTERMAN (1:285/27)
        >
        >
        > The following article is republished without
        > permission.  It was discovered on my Fax machine this
        > morning and I have no clue as to the publisher, date,
        > or source as I did not even get a polling number from
        > the transmiting Fax.  It was in retyped form.  If
        > anyone can verify, I would appreciate it.
        >
        >            WEST'S LEADERS WARN WASHINGTON:
        >             GIVE US LIBERTY --- OR ELSE
        >
        >       UTAH LAWMAKERS LEAD CHARGE AGAINST D.C.
        >
        > [ article ommitted to save space ]
        >
        
        I just wanted to let you all know that this is *FOR
        REAL*!!! The rally was in February, and was a meeting
        of the _Western States' Coallition_, held at the state
        house in Salt Lake City, Utah.
        
        I called the state house in Utah and spoke with Rep.
        Bishop's secretary (named Clay) to get verification,
        and he affirmed the report.  If any of you would care
        to confirm this for yourselves, you can reach Rep.
        Bishop's office at (801) 538-1612.
        
        Happy Revolution (or is that gunpowder I smell? ;-)
        
         [ShareDebate International Editor's note: tangent
          postscript omitted to save space]
        
        ======================================================
                     Miscellaneous Libernet Entry-2
        ======================================================
        
        Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 12:27:56 -0500 (EST)
        From: "BILL WOOLSEY (2-5161)" <WOOLSEYW@citadel.edu>
        Subject: Introduction to Libertarianism
        To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU
        
                     Introduction to Libertarianism
        
             Libertarianism is a political perspective that is
        skeptical about government across the board.
        Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially
        tolerant, so they are different from modern
        conservatives and liberals.  While many conservatives
        share the libertarian skepticism of government in
        general, modern conservatism tends to favor using the
        criminal justice system to promote traditional moral
        values.  And while many liberals favor social
        toleration (so libertarianism is sometimes called
        "classical" or "market" liberalism), modern liberalism
        still favors the failed "tax and spend" policies of big
        government.
        
            Many excellent books and publications are available
        from Laissez-Faire Books (call 800-326-099) for those
        interested in learning more about libertarianism.
        
            _Market Liberalism:  A Paradigm for the 21st
        Century_, edited by David Boaz and Edward H. Crane and
        published by the Cato Institute, advocates specific
        libertarian reforms in the areas of economic, social,
        and foreign policy.  The Cato Institute (1000
        Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 2001) is a
        major libertarian think tank that publishes books,
        journals, and policy studies and organizes conferences.
        
            _Reason_ is a monthly magazine published by the
        Reason Foundation.  It is dedicated to "Free Minds and
        Free Markets" and is the leading libertarian
        periodical.  The Reason Foundation has also sponsored
        studies on the privatization of various government
        services.  Subscriptions:  PO Box 526, Mt. Morris, IL
        61054-7868 ($26 per year).
        
             Other books provide a more general introduction to
        libertarian ideas.
        
             _Free to Choose:  A Personal Statement_ by Milton
        and Rose Friedman is an introduction to a libertarian
        perspective on the economy.  It was also made into a
        multi-episode PBS documentary. The Friedmans are
        strongly libertarian, favoring much less government
        across the board.  Milton Friedman won the Nobel prize
        in economics and was an economics columnist for
        _Newsweek_ for many years.
        
             _Crisis and Leviathan:  Critical Episodes in the
        Growth of American Government_ by Robert A. Higgs
        describes the growth of government in the United States
        despite the libertarian ideals expressed in the
        Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers'
        skepticism of government across the board.  Robert
        Higgs is a professor at Seattle University.
        
             Still other books provide an introduction to an
        even stricter libertarian view of the proper role of
        government.
        
             _Liberty and Nature:  An Aristotelian Defense of
        Liberal Order_ by Douglass R. Rassmussen and Douglas J.
        Den Uly is a rigorous philosophical defense of a
        government that is strictly limited to the defense
        individual rights to life, liberty, and property.  It
        will be of special interest to those attracted by the
        writings of novelist Ayn Rand.  Rassmussen is professor
        of philosophy at St. John's University and Den Uyl is a
        professor of philosophy at Bellarmine College.
        
            _The Machinery of Freedom:  A Guide to Radical
        Capitalism_ by David Friedman argues that most
        government activities should be privatized today and
        that all government activities can be privatized in the
        future.  Friedman's approach is very practical. He
        explains the reasons why political "solutions" have had
        adverse consequences and describes the benefits that
        everyone would obtain if government was rolled back
        across the board.  David Friedman is professor of law
        and economics at University of Chicago School of Law.
        
             There are also organizations aimed at promoting
        libertarianism through the political process.
        
             The Libertarian Party is the third largest party
        in the United States and promotes libertarian change by
        running candidates for public office.  LP members
        currently hold about 100 offices.  For more
        information:  Libertarian Party, 1528 Pennsylvania Ave.
        SE, Washington D.C. 20003.
        
             The Republican Liberty Caucus promotes
        libertarianism within the Republican Party by
        cultivating "socially tolerant and fiscally
        conservative" Republicans.   For more information:
        Republican Liberty Caucus, 1717 Apalachee Parkway,
        Suite 434, Tallahassee, Fla. 32301.
        
                                                     Posted by:
        
                                                   Bill Woolsey
                               Vice Chair, Charleston County LP
                                         (WoolseyW@Citadel.edu)
        
        ======================================================
                     Miscellaneous Libernet Entry-3
        ======================================================
        
        Date: 22 Mar 94 09:33:08 EST
        From: Chris Whitten <74217.1631@CompuServe.COM>
        Subject: Laissez Faire Books
        To: Libernet <libernet@Dartmouth.EDU>
        
        _____________________________________________________
        
                          LAISSEZ FAIRE BOOKS
        _____________________________________________________
        
        Many of you are probably already familiar with the
        Laissez Faire Books catalog.
        
        If you're not--let me give you a quick introduction to
        who we are.  (If you're already a customer, please
        don't skip over this, I want to ask your advice.)
        
        For just over 20 years, Laissez Faire has been a
        central source for libertarian books and tapes.  We
        carry a wide selection of books on liberty... authors
        such as Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig von Mises,
        F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, H.L. Mencken, Dave Barry,
        P.J. O'Rourke, Thomas Sowell, Thomas Szasz, Milton
        Friedman and many others... we offer books on
        education, the Founding Fathers, drug policy,
        objectivism, philosophy, gun control, economics, free-
        market health care, science fiction, humor, politics,
        investment, and much more.
        
        Since just last June I've been the Managing Editor for
        Laissez Faire Books.  Over the past few months I've
        been looking into the possibilities for offering our
        products electronically.  I have to admit, this is all
        very new to me--that's why I am asking for your advice.
        
        We are already planning on posting some of our new book
        reviews here on libernet.  We would probably only be
        showing you a reduced version of what appears in the
        catalog--but we would be posting it here first.
        Libernet readers would get to hear about the new books
        before regular catalog readers.  We're also looking
        into ways to offer our complete catalog on-line, and
        ways for you to order electronically.  But we still
        have a long way to go.
        
        I would like to hear your comments and/or questions.  I
        would welcome any advice you can give.  (Chris Whitten,
        74217.1631@compuserve.com)
        
        If you're not already on our "snail mail" list for the
        catalog: sign up. It's free.  Call 1-800-326-0996, or
        write to 938 Howard Street, #202, San Francisco, CA,
        94103.
        
        Thanks for your time.
        
        ======================================================
                     Miscellaneous Libernet Entry-4
        ======================================================
        
        Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 10:47:00 PST
        From: James Donald <jamesd@central.com>
        Subject: ACLU supports hush Rush Bill
        To: libernet <libernet@Dartmouth.EDU>
        
        The ACLU now supports the "Hush Rush" Bill. (They gave
        congressional testimony in support of "Hush Rush") This
        bill would require radio and television broadcasters to
        be "fair" and to give equal time to "all" points of
        view, with government bureaucrats deciding what is
        fair, and what points of view are sufficiently
        important to count as "all".
        
        The ACLU recently attacked the second amendment.
        
        Spy Magazine recently commented that those who attack
        the second amendment really seek to attack the first,
        and joked that MTV may talk about lighting fires and
        killing children, but Janet Reno actually does
        something about it.
        
        -------------------------------------------------------
        We have the right to defend ourselves and our
        property, because of the kind of animals that we
        are.  True law derives from this right, not from
        the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
                                                James A. Donald
                                              jamesd@netcom.com
        -------------------------------------------------------
        
        ======================================================
                     Miscellaneous Libernet Entry-5
        ======================================================
        
        Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 13:48:48 -0500 (EST)
        From: Kevin Brook <kbrook@acad.bryant.edu>
        Subject: Global Warming Did Not Occur
        To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU
        
        Liberals, Greens, and Democrats like Al Gore often use
        "the threat of global warming" as an excuse to expand
        the government's role in environmental regulation.
        However, noted scientists recently have found that
        global warming is merely a fiction.  While recycling
        efforts and lower pollution rates are commendable
        projects, the "doom and gloom" predictions of the
        liberals have not come true.
        
        This is not the first time I have come across a
        refutation of global warming in the news, but it
        certainly was in a notable source: USA TODAY, March 4,
        1994 issue, page 3A:
        
        "NO GLOBAL WARMING: A new study casts doubt on fears
        the world is in imminent danger from global warming or
        ozone depletion.  Satellite data show that despite high
        levels of carbon-dioxide emissions, there have been
        insignificant temperature changes over the past 15
        years.  Frederic Seitz, former president of the
        National Academy of Sciences, said his study also shows
        the lifetime of atmospheric carbon dioxide, considered
        a major factor in global warming, is about 10 years,
        not the widely-believed 50 years."
        
        Environmental pollution is a trespass on you and I, but
        if the government turned over some of its lands to
        conservation groups and non-profit organizations, any
        pollution which would be incurred by the general public
        or by businesses would be considered a violation of
        private property. I do not feel "denationalizing the
        National Parks" is a big issue to think about when we
        have more serious problems facing us, but I did feel
        that the article above shows that facts, statistics,
        and observations refute the theory of global warming
        quite clearly.  We do not need more government
        regulation, we need less.  I therefore would object to
        raising the EPA to a cabinet-level status, as some
        Democrats have proposed.
        
                                                    Kevin Brook
                              Libertarian Party of Connecticut,
                               Western 5th District Coordinator
        
        ======================================================
                     Miscellaneous Libernet Entry-6
        ======================================================
        
        Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 19:49:00 -0500
        From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu.cs.du.edu
              !canrem.com!financial.opportunities
        (Financial Opportunities)
        
        Subject: A new Bill of Rights to go with the Con-Con?
        To: bolis.sf-bay.org!act
        
        Thought you happy folks would appreciate this item,
        found here on CRS.
        
        It's a wry look at a "revised" Bill of Rights [perhaps
        "prophetic", if the Con-Con convenes!]
        
                                                        Cheers!
                                                        John W.
        
        
                             NEW
                           THE^BILL OF RIGHTS
        
        Nearly everything has changed in the United States
        since the Bill of Rights was written and adopted.  We
        still see the original words when we read those first
        10 Amendments to the Constitution, yet the meaning is
        vastly different now.
        
        And no wonder.  We've gone from a country of a few
        million to a few hundred million.  The nation's desire
        to band together was replaced by revulsion of
        togetherness.  We exchanged a birthright of justice for
        a magic bullet, and replaced the Pioneer Spirit with
        the Pioneer Stereo.
        
        We're not the people who founded this country and our
        Bill of Rights should reflect this.
        
        As we approach the 21st Century, it's time to bring the
        wording up to date showing what we are and who we are.
        
                              AMENDMENT I
        
        Congress shall make no law establishing religion, but
        shall act as if it did; and shall make no laws
        abridging the freedom of speech, unless such speech can
        be construed as "commercial speech" or "irresponsible
        speech" or "offensive speech;" or shall abridge the
        right of the people to peaceably assemble where and
        when permitted; or shall abridge the right to petition
        the government for a redress of grievances, under
        proper procedures.
        
        It shall be unlawful to cry "Fire!" in a theatre
        occupied by three or more persons, unless such persons
        shall belong to a class declared Protected by one or
        more divisions of Federal, State or Local government,
        in which case the number of persons shall be one or
        more.
        
                              AMENDMENT II
        
        A well-regulated military force shall be maintained
        under control of the President, and no political entity
        within the United States shall maintain a military
        force beyond Presidential control.  The right of the
        people to keep and bear arms shall be determined by the
        Congress and the States and the Cities and the Counties
        and the Towns (and someone named Fred.)
        
                             AMENDMENT III
        
        No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any
        house without the consent of the owner, unless such
        house is believed to have been used, or believed may be
        used, for some purpose contrary to law or public
        policy.
        
                              AMENDMENT IV
        
        The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
        houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
        searches and seizures may not be suspended except to
        protect public welfare.  Any place or conveyance shall
        be subject to search by law enforcement forces of any
        political entity, and any such places or conveyances,
        or any property within them, may be confiscated without
        judicial proceeding if believed to be used in a manner
        contrary to law.
        
                              AMENDMENT V
        
        Any person may be held to answer for a crime of any
        kind upon any suspicion whatever; and may be put in
        jeopardy of life or liberty by the state courts, by the
        federal judiciary, and while incarcerated; and may be
        compelled to be a witness against himself by the forced
        submission of his body or any portion thereof, and by
        testimony in proceedings excluding actual trial.
        Private property forfeited under judicial process shall
        become the exclusive property of the judicial authority
        and shall be immune from seizure by injured parties.
        
                              AMENDMENT VI
        
        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
        the right to avoid prosecution by exhausting the legal
        process and its practitioners.  Failure to succeed
        shall result in speedy plea-bargaining resulting in
        lesser charges. Convicted persons shall be entitled to
        appeal until sentence is completed.  It shall be
        unlawful to bar or deter an incompetent person from
        service on a jury.
        
                             AMENDMENT VII
        
        In civil suits, where a contesting party is a person
        whose private life may interest the public, the right
        of trial in the Press shall not be abridged.
        
                             AMENDMENT VIII
        
        Sufficient bail may be required to ensure that
        dangerous persons remain in custody pending trial.
        There shall be no right of the public to be afforded
        protection from dangerous persons, and such protection
        shall be dependent upon incarceration facilities
        available.
        
                              AMENDMENT IX
        
        The enumeration in The Constitution of certain rights
        shall be construed to deny or discourage others which
        may from time to time be extended by the branches of
        Federal, State or Local government, unless such rights
        shall themselves become enacted by Amendment.
        
                              AMENDMENT X
        
        The powers not delegated to the United States by the
        Constitution shall be deemed to be powers residing in
        persons holding appointment therein through the Civil
        Service, and may be delegated to the States and local
        Governments as determined by the public interest.  The
        public interest shall be determined by the Civil
        Service.
        
        -------------------------------------------------------
                  The Pen is mightier than the Sword.
                  The Court is mightier than the Pen.
                 The Sword is mightier than the Court.
                                                  - Rey Barry -
        -------------------------------------------------------
        [What a *great* sig.!]
        ------------------------------
        
        ======================================================
                     Miscellaneous Libernet Entry-7
        ======================================================
        
        Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 02:29:48 PST
        From: Clay Conrad <rutgers!p49.f91.n382.z1.fidonet.org
              !Clay.Conrad@Dartmouth.EDU>
        Subject: A new Bill of Rights to go with the Con-Con?
        To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU
        
        X-Fido-Echo: LIBERTY
        To: Libernet (A. J. Teel, Sui Juris)
        Date:  9 Mar 94  19:31:52
        
        A friend of mine in NH recently offered me this
        argument, that I have found very successful with ACLU
        type liberals:
        
                                --------
        
        Yes, the 2d Amendment is obsolete.  When it was written
        there were no such things as street sweepers, machine
        guns, drug gangs or uzis.  We should repeal the 2d
        Amendment.
        
        The first is also obsolete, though.  When it was
        written there were no color pornographic magazines,
        hard core videotapes, or xxx movie theatres.  We should
        repeal the 1st Amendment.
        
        The 4th Amendment is obsolete.  When it was written
        there was no such thing as electronic transmission,
        paper shredders, drugs were legal, etc. It was not so
        necessary to be able to gain instant access to people's
        houses and evidence in those older, simpler times.  We
        should repeal the 4th Amendment. ..... Similar
        arguments can be made for all of the bill of rights.
        
        If the 2d is obsolete due to changes in society, why is
        the trial by jury not obsolete, now that evidence has
        gotten so technical?  Can laypeople really understand
        advanced forensic evidence?  Maybe we need to repeal
        the 5th, 6th and 7th amendments.
        
        -And the 8th amendment?  Today, we really need to get
        tough.  Get rid of it.
        
        -The 9th and 10th have been de facto repealed anyway,
        but let's get formal and pull out the old eraser.  That
        was then, this is now.  The Civil War amendments
        changed all that - we don't need them in the 1990's.
        
        -Anybody who accepts the 2d amendment argument should
        accept the others as well.  We might as well keep the
        3d - it's the only one that anybody obeys anymore
        anyway.
        
        --- Maximus 2.00
        * Origin: LibertyBBS Austin,Tx(512)326-9491 (1:382/91.49)
        --
        Forwarded from the LIBERTY echo via dehnbase.fidonet.org
        
                     ------------------------------
            ### [End of Miscellaneous Libernet Postings] ###
