Jan2000

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Armed M is a publication of the 2nd Amendment SIG, a special interest group of American Mensa Ltd. Opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the writers, and not of American Mensa, Ltd., which has no opinions. This newsletter is linked to the Mensa web page WWW.Mensa.org as WWW.webcatt.com/2ndAmend_SIG

==============================================================================================

I have moved and am now in Wilmington North Carolina. My E-Mail address is Smith13@Worldnet.att.net. I can always use contributions to the newsletter. If you write something or find something e-mail it to me I'll put it in the newsletter as space and theme allows. Bob Smith

Edmonton - As many as half Canada's gun owners could be in violation of federal law on Jan. 1, the deadline for obtaining firearms licences.

So far, 1.7 million people have enrolled with the federal government's gun registry. The exact number of Canadians possessing firearms is unknown but estimates range from fewer than 3.3 million to as many as nine million.

In any case, it appears that far more people own guns than are participating in the registry under the controversial legislation, still often referred to by its legislative name, Bill C-68.

"They've got a heck of a mess on their hands," Jim Hinter, president of the National Firearms Association, said. "I think it proves that there's literally millions of Canadians who are just refusing to participate in what they see as a bogus law."

As of Jan. 1, gun owners without licenses cannot buy ammunition. Penalties for someone found possessing a firearm without the proper paperwork range from temporary seizure of the weapon to five years in prison.

The application of the law promises to be uneven. Police forces across the country are responsible for enforcing it, but are deeply divided in their support. Provincial Crown attorneys are charged with prosecuting alleged offenders, but Alberta and some other provinces that disagree with the legislation want federal Crowns to handle prosecutions.

From its inception, the Firearms Act has been a target of heavy opposition. A group of provincial and territorial governments, led by Alberta and supported by gun organizations, challenged the law all the way to the Supreme Court, but failed in June when that court ruled the legislation constitutional.

The licensing and registration program has cost $327-million, since the law's passage in 1995, to April 1, 2000. The law requires that all owners of long guns (rifles and shotguns that had been previously exempt) obtain possession licenses by Dec. 31, 2000, or after their existing firearms acquisition certificates expire. Then, by Dec. 31, 2002, people must register each of their guns, a provision that is even more controversial than licensing.

The government has run an extensive advertising campaign. It plans large ads in newspapers in major cities this weekend reminding people they must get their licences, which are selling for a reduced rate of $10 to encourage compliance. In recent months, it has set up booths in malls to help people with their applications.

The issue of how many Canadians own guns is itself controversial. The National Firearms Association contends the number is between seven million and nine million, or nearly one person in three. The federal government commissioned public-opinion surveys three years ago that concluded there were 3.3 million gun-owning Canadians. Now, however, Ottawa is backing away from that number, saying that many people have either sold their firearms or given them away because of the approaching deadline.

Pressed to estimate the number of gun owners, David Austin, a spokesman for the government's Canadian Firearms Centre, could not provide a ballpark figure, saying 3.3 million is "probably high, but I can't tell you really now how high."

Mr. Hinter of the firearms association said it is in the government's interest to low-ball gun ownership figures so that the rate of compliance with the law looks higher than it really is. "The government is going to keep lowering the estimate of the number of gun owners until they can declare success with Step 1 of the law, run around and claim victory," he said.

Mr. Austin rejects that argument and says the vast majority of Canadians are enrolling. "I think you're going to find that Canadians generally are compliant; they know it's the law of the land," he said.

He also said a great many applications are likely in the mail and more are to come as owners scramble to meet the Dec. 31 deadline. Because of the deluge, staff working 24 hours a day are issuing temporary licences that are valid for up to six months and will be replaced by proper documentation in the new year.

Owners of gun stores say some clients are intending to flout the law. "Lots of customers say, 'To hell with it'," said Wolf Gronau, who operates a gun shop in Edmonton.

Mr. Gronau, who has a firearms acquisition certificate that is valid for another three years, saving him from having to apply for a licence under the new law until his current one expires, said the legislation will result in the spread of the black market for firearms.

Along with buying guns illegally, Mr. Gronau said, people will purchase their ammunition under the table because the law requires a licence to buy bullets. He added that he has seen at least a 50-per-cent jump in sales of ammunition this fall by his customers and the extra materials may end up on the black market in the new year.

Although opinion polls have shown that most Canadians support gun control, Bill C-68 has been intensely criticized by gun groups and by provincial and territorial governments. Some argue that those responsible for violent crime will not obtain licences and that the law violates people's fundamental personal and property rights.

One gun group urged its members to thumb their noses at the law by refusing to obtain licences. Other organizations recommended that people overwhelm the phone lines, fax machines and mailbags at the government's processing centres.

This fall, the Canadian Police Association, which represents the country's rank-and-file officers and is deeply divided over the legislation, postponed the question of supporting the law until next year.

[Note: The excerpt below applies not only to Canada, and it applies not only to firearms registration. It also applies to any peoples who will not tolerate tyranny, and it applies to any lawmaking that a large portion of the population reject, and the result is, for every instance of widespread rejection of bad law, a "tendency towards a militarization of the police." Hence we have SWAT teams, asset forfeiture, no-knock dynamic entry to serve search warrants, ECHELON, Carnivor, secret courts, WACO, Ruby Ridge, and a socialist government, oh, and let's not forget the doctrine of 'harmless error'. - Tony] Excerpt: "The rejection of firearm registration by "the policed" necessarily accelerates the tendency towards a militarization of the police. This will further act to divide the police from the policed." The price of safety is freedom. How Firearms Registration Works -- It doesn't. By Professor Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada, & Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute In the United States, universal firearms registration is demanded by groups such as Handgun Control, Inc., and the "Million" Mom March Foundation. They argue that registration would encourage greater responsibility among owners and also provide police with better methods of tracing lost or stolen firearms. Opponents argue that such a scheme would be unworkable and, at best, just create another costly bureaucracy. The recent introduction of firearm registration in Canada enables us to see how firearms registration actually works.

Jean Chretien's Liberal government pushed through a massive revision of Canada's firearm laws in 1995, with Bill C-68. The new law, among many other things, required that long guns (rifles and shotguns) be registered. Handgun registration had been required since the 1930s. When firearm registration was introduced, the federal government claimed that it would cost no more than $55 million (US) over 5 years. Although few firearms have been registered, the cost of setting up the firearm registration bureaucracy has already passed $350 million (US) and the total may reach $1 billion (US) in 2001. Other governmental priorities have languished while costs have skyrocketed for firearm registration. The total number of Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP" -- only Americans call them "Mounties") officers declined, and RCMP salaries were frozen for seven years, while the number of employees working on firearm registration grew to around 600 in 1999 and to over 1,700 in 2000. Canadian polls find over 80% of respondents supporting registering firearms, slightly more than the number of Americans who say they support registration. But public opinion begins to shift as soon as people realize that it will cost them -- as taxpayers -- serious money or that it will divert governmental resources from more desirable programs. Canadian support drops to 50% when respondents are told that it might cost $500 million to register firearms; dropping further to around 40% when the trade- off is a reduction in the number of police officers. Despite the absence of any organization in Canada similar to the powerful NRA (Canada's National Firearms Association is much smaller), firearm registration had a significant impact on Canadian politics. Five provinces have held general elections since 1995. Firearm registration was an issue in every one of them; no party supporting firearm registration was elected. Firearm registration also had a powerful impact on the federal election this November. Opposition to firearm registration was an important reason that the Liberals were all but shut out in western Canada by the Canadian Alliance. Although registration was not an important issue in central Canada (Ontario, the population center of Canada), opposition to firearm registration did help the Alliance to win seats in rural Ontario, and helped the Conservatives in Atlantic Canada. According to the father of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, the police must have the support of 'the policed' for laws to be enforced effectively. Experience in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States shows that gun-owner non-compliance with registration is widespread. In Canada, surveys show that many gun owners will refuse to register. This percentage has increased since the law was passed. In 1995, 72% said they'd comply. In 1997, only 58% said they would. The rejection of firearm registration by "the policed" necessarily accelerates the tendency towards a militarization of the police. This will further act to divide the police from the policed. The debate over firearm registration has caused deep divisions in police ranks. Surveys of serving police officers show that many do not support this legislation. The Canadian Police Association has voted to reconsider its support for firearm registration. In Canada, as in the U.S., gun laws are usually passed during periods of public hysteria or fear, then, after the threat recedes, individual rights and freedoms have been further diminished. Firearm owners serve as a convenient "devil" for the government to justify passing new legislation. A frightened public supports new restrictions on their individual freedom because the government claims it needs more power to deal with the threat. In the past, the Canadian government has demonized other minorities: Orientals, labor organizers, and Quebecois separatists. During the 1930s, handguns were the first type of firearm to be registered when the Canadian government feared labor unrest as well as American "rum runners." There were separate permits for "British subjects" and for "aliens." Subsequently, during World War II, firearms were confiscated from all Orientals, even Chinese Canadians. In 1977, the protection of property was eliminated as a suitable reason for acquiring a handgun. Police routinely refuse to issue a firearm permit to anyone who indicates they desire a firearm for self-protection (although Canadians still use guns defensively.) <http://www.saf.org/journal/11Mauser.pdf In 1991>, after a nationwide campaign demonizing "gun owners," the government vastly expanded the list of types of firearms that needed to be registered. In 1995, Bill C-68 was rammed through parliament over the protests of three of the four opposition parties. This bill banned small and short-barreled handguns on the grounds that they could be easily concealed. Presumably, large caliber handguns are less dangerous. In addition to prohibiting and confiscating over half of all registered handguns, Bill C-68 also: - Significantly relaxes parliamentary oversight of the process of prohibiting weapons through order in council (allowing gun bans without the need for parliamentary approval); - Broadens the police powers of "search and seizure" and expands the types of officials who can make use of such powers (allowing the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns); - Requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves; - Requires firearm licenses to possess and acquire firearms, and to buy ammunition; - Requires the registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles. Immediately after the federal election this November, the government decided to classify BB and pellet guns as firearms; and then expanded the list of restricted weapons. The demonization of average people who happen to own a gun lays the foundation for a massive increase in governmental intrusiveness in the lives of ordinary citizens. In short, firearm registration is already damaging traditional Canadian liberties and freedoms, while protecting criminals by keeping police off the street. Is this what Americans want to happen in the United States?

"It is a false idea of utility to sacrifice a thousand real advantages for the sake of one disadvantage which is either imaginary or of little consequence; this would take fire away from men because it burns and water because it drowns people; this is to have no remedy for evils except destruction. Laws forbidding people to bear arms are of this nature; they only disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Cesare Beccaria; "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764 (Chapter XL, "False Ideas of Utility") --translated by Jefferson and copied into his "Commonplace Book" of great quotations.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP PUBLIC MASS SHOOTINGS?

To see if there are any public policies that reduce the carnage of public mass shootings, researchers at the University of Chicago compiled data on all multiple-victim public shootings that occurred in the United States from 1977 to 1999.

These were incidents in which at least two people were killed or injured in a public place, excluding gang wars or shootings during another crime, such as robbery.

The United States averaged more than 20 such shootings annually, with an average of 1.5 people killed and 2.5 wounded per incident.

The researchers examined the effects of different gun laws, such as waiting periods, as well the frequency and level of punishment, on the occurrence of these tragedies.

They found no consistent deterrent effect from higher arrest and conviction rates, prison sentences or the death penalty in fact; the perpetrators are usually killed in the attack or commit suicide.

To be effective, policies must deal with what motivates these criminals, which is to kill and injure as many people as possible.

Some appear to do it for the publicity, which is itself related to the amount of harm they inflict. Thus the best way to stop these attacks is to enact policies that can limit the carnage.

The only policy they found that effectively accomplishes this is the passage of right-to-carry laws. Some 32 states now give adults the right to carry concealed handguns as long as they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

When states passed such laws during the 23 years studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by a dramatic 67 percent. Deaths and injuries from these shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

Source: John R. Lott Jr., "What we can do after Wakefield?"
Boston Globe, December 28, 2000.

For text http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/363/oped/What_we_can_do_after_Wakefield+.shtm

Can you imagine working at the following Company? It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics:

It’s the 535 members of your United States Congress. The same group that perpetually cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of new laws designed to keep the rest of us in line.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/default-20001218223350.htm

December 18, 2000 Reagan essays reveal his intellect By Larry Witham THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Hundreds of recently discovered policy essays by Ronald Reagan from the 1970s reveal a "one-man think tank," not the "amiable dunce" portrayed by his critics, editors of the documents say.

The 670 handwritten radio commentaries are what's left of more than 1,000 composed between 1975 and 1979. They were lost in storage boxes, but now may be the best archive of the 40th president's original thinking.

"We discovered that the guy has been writing all his life," said Martin Anderson, domestic-policy adviser to Mr. Reagan and co-editor of an anthology of more than 200 essays and other works. "We kept marveling at the clarity of his writing, but also the breadth of issues."

Some of the cache will be serialized in the New York Times next year, and Simon and Schuster has embargoed quotes from the works until the book's February release.

"We're just going to put out the original drafts and let people decide" the literary and intellectual merit, he said, arguing that Mr. Reagan comes across as a "one-man think tank."

Besides this find, little remains of Mr. Reagan's lifelong paper trail of handwritten documents.

The yellow notepad leafs were found by Kiron K. Skinner, a Harvard graduate and Democrat who was only the second person given access to Mr. Reagan's private papers, still in some disorder.

"One day she walked in and said, 'Look at this. There are a lot of them,' " Mr. Anderson said. Miss Skinner, a specialist in Cold War foreign policy, now teaches at Carnegie Mellon University.

Mr. Anderson also found unknown Reagan writings when, at Nancy Reagan's request, he cleaned out the president's Los Angeles desk after he went into seclusion because of Alzheimer's disease.

The bulk of the newly discovered documents are first-draft, final-draft radio talks given for five minutes, five days a week. They were heard by tens of millions of listeners but never archived.

"They were not written for posterity," Mr. Anderson said. But he said they prove that Mr. Reagan read widely, analyzed nearly every complex issue of the day, and stated his position with compelling literary quality.

"It's extraordinary to see these written out in hand," Mr. Anderson said. "You see his corrections. You see his mind at work. I know a lot of intelligent people who can't write. But I don't know any person who writes this well who is not intelligent."

The book also includes 20 other Reagan writings, from poems to fiction and letters, from 1925 to 1994. That year he penned a final letter to Americans about his "journey .into the sunset of my life" with Alzheimer's.

Foreign-policy experts also have identified one five-page script, titled "Mr. Minister" - found in Mr. Reagan's desk - as what Mr. Anderson called the president's "talking points for the entire U.S. strategy" in opening U.S.-Soviet relations.

Marvin Kranz, a historian at the Library of Congress, has not seen the essays, but agrees they might change opinions.

"If they show a side of Reagan we didn't know, that would change our image to someone of greater intellectual wattage than he'd been known for," Mr. Kranz said. "His critics have been very harsh."

Mr. Kranz said lost presidential materials rarely shatter scholarly opinion, but they can surprise. Two notable cases were Robert Lincoln's closure of his father's papers for decades and Millard Fillmore's letters being found in a New York barn long after his death.

Hoover Institution fellow Arnold Beichman has read the material and calls it an "astounding revelation" about a man assumed by his staff and the news media to be a "great communicator" but a lightweight thinker.

"He was called an 'amiable dunce,' and the media made him out to be a half-wit surrounded by a bunch of geniuses," he said. The essays will "force academics to revise their scholarship."

Some have said that the assumption that Reagan was not intellectually gifted is so strong that even biographer Edmund Morris overlooked the implication of the essays, from which he cited a few lines as the first to gain access to the private papers.

The Morris book, friends of the president say, perpetuated the so-called "mystery" of how such a simple mind could accomplish so much politically.

Mr. Anderson said the answer may be that Mr. Reagan had a deep intelligence, seen when he read a newspaper at age five, but not flaunted during his political career.

"He never argued with anyone," Mr. Anderson said. "He never gave orders to anyone. Yet he made every single key decision."

With the discovery, the editors interviewed Mr. Reagan's secretary and drivers - former state troopers - who traveled and stayed with him between 1975 and 1979.

"Very few people were around him when he was writing, except the state troopers," Mr. Anderson said. "They said, 'All the guy did was work. He read all the time. Wrote all the time.' "

This may give credence to one theory that Mr. Reagan's incipient Alzheimer's at the end of his political career allowed pundits to label him weak-minded.

Mr. Anderson said the truth about the Hollywood actor-turned-statesman may be what biographer Mr. Morris said of the Alzheimer's letter - that it had a touch of "genius."

The following article is from a leaflet that has been distributed by the Libertarian Party in New Jersey. Written by an attorney, it deals with the subject of talking to police or other government agents. Pro-gun cops echo the same sentiments as the below: don't incriminate yourself; keep your mouth shut by exercising your right to remain silent. "Anything you say can and WILL be used against you in a court of law." This is in no way meant to imply that all cops are "out to get you"; they aren't. This is simply sound advice should the law enforcement folks one day show up at your door.

Don't Talk to Cops By Robert W. Zeuner Member of the New York State Bar "GOOD MORNING! My name is investigator Holmes. Do you mind answering a few simple questions?" If you open your door one day and are greeted with those words, stop and think! Whether it is the local police or the FBI at your door, you have certain legal rights of which you ought to be aware before you proceed any further.

In the first place, when the law enforcement authorities come to see you, there are no "simple questions." Unless they are investigating a traffic accident, you can be sure that they want information about somebody. And that somebody may be you!

Rule Number one to remember when confronted by the authorities is that there is no law require you to talk with the police, the FBI, or the representative of any other investigative agency. Even the simplest questions may be loaded and the seemingly harmless bits of information, which you volunteer, may later become vital links in a chain of circumstantial evidence against you or a friend.

Do not invite the investigator into your home! Such an invitation not only gives him the opportunity to look around for clues to your lifestyle, friends, reading material, etc., but also tends to prolong the conversation. And the longer the conversation, the more chance there is for a skilled investigator to find out what he wants to know.

Many times a police officer will ask you to accompany him to the police station to answer a few questions. In that case, simply thank him for the invitation and indicate that you are not disposed to accept it at that time. Often the authorities simply want to photograph a person for identification purposes, a procedure that is easily accomplished by placing him in a private room with a two-way mirror at the station, asking him a few innocent questions, and then releasing him.

If the investigator becomes angry at your failure to cooperate and threatens you with arrest, stand firm. He cannot legally place you under arrest or enter your home without a warrant signed by a judge. If he indicates that he has such a warrant, ask to see it. A person under arrest or located on premises to be searched, generally must be shown a warrant if he requests it and must be given a chance to read it.

Without a warrant, an officer depends solely upon your helpfulness to obtain the information he wants. So, unless you are quite sure of yourself, don't be helpful.

Probably the wisest approach to take to a persistent investigator is simply to say: "I'm quite busy now. If you have any questions that you feel I can answer, I'd be happy to listen to them in my lawyer's office. Goodbye!" Talk is cheap. But when that talk involves the law enforcement authorities, it may cost you, or someone close to you, dearly.

Source: America 1st Freedom magazine Published: Jan 2001

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretion of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere. Maslack recently proposed a bill to register non-gunowners and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the previlige of not owning a gun.

Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.

Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" and those perssons who "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise".

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government intrest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

Honey, pack you bags!! Vermont here we come!!! (:~)

What a new spirit has arrived with the new year 2001, An upright President (George W), a sensible Senate, Tax cut coming and now this!! The Lord is GOOD to America.

1 Posted on 01/02/2001 19:04:10 PST by prophetic [ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ] To: prophetic Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

Oh boy, if that's true and if it wasn't so cold up there I might move up there from Florida! At the rate the Noo Yawkas move HERE I might have to anyway. And a bonus... moose and maple syrup. mmmmm mmmm.

To: prophetic Some would call me irresponsible and radical, but I believe the Federal government would be within its Constitutional boundaries if it issued all citizens a M1, M14 or M16 and a Colt .45 handgun along with 1,000 rounds of ammo for each. The citizen’s duty would be to keep the weapons in good operating condition and be competent in their use. Those not wanting to participate would be required to maintain some other assets that could be used in the defense of our liberties. Violent crime would drop like a rock.

To: prophetic Oh don't we wish..... Unfortunately, this will pass at about the same time as the Vermont desert protection act.

Actually I like the idea of making non-gun owners pay a fee. Not owning a gun is a privilege that we gun-owning folk make possible.

Article 9. [Citizens' rights and duties in the state; bearing arms; taxation] That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute the member's proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield personal service, when necessary, or an equivalent thereto, but no part of any person's property can be justly taken, or applied to public uses, without the person's own consent, or that of the Representative Body, nor can any person who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if such person will pay such equivalent; nor are the people bound by any law but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good: and previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.

Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil] That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

To: prophetic I think they should take the $500 paid by those who don't own guns, and set them in a fund to build shooting ranges, and purchase guns and ammo for those who want guns, but can't afford them. That way, you can tell a liberal that his/her not buying a gun helps someone else get one.

Why I own a gun (she actually owns two handguns--a .357 magnum and a .22). 19 Posted on 01/02/2001 22:00:01 PST by LarryLied [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: Blood of Tyrants Just because you're a pessimist doesn't mean no one is pestering you. Well, the math would give you gun owners and tax evading non-gun owners. Either way, they can come after you. LOL 20 Posted on 01/02/2001 22:15:21 PST by piasa [ Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ] To: prophetic You are very right! Violence is encouraged by a lack of self defense, perceived or otherwise. Nothing discourages a would-be rapist faster than the sudden acquisition of an additional navel!

The Silent Revolution by Joseph Sobran

The most successful revolutions aren't those that are celebrated with parades and banners, drums and trumpets, cannons and fireworks. The really successful revolutions are those that occur quietly, unnoticed, uncommemorated.

We don't celebrate the day the United States Constitution was destroyed; it didn't happen on a specific date, and most Americans still don't realize it happened at all. We don't say the Constitution has ceased to exist; we merely say that it's a "living document." But it amounts to the same thing.

If it weren't for the idea of the Living Document - if the federal government were still circumscribed by the Constitution - it wouldn't matter much whether Al Gore became president. It's only the fluidity of limitless power that makes personalities fateful.

The idea of the Living Document was never really debated. It has prevailed because it was gradually insinuated without debate. Lawyers loved it, and that was sufficient.

To formulate that idea is to expose its incoherence. So let's formulate it.

It means that the Constitution has no stable and permanent meaning. It means that the Constitution "evolves," spontaneously changing - and improving - with time. It means that this evolution, this improvement, occurs in (of all possible places) the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court. It means that the Court is a sort of oracle, suddenly revealing what the Constitution "means," no matter how alien those new "meanings" may be to what the Constitution has always been understood to mean.

Thus the caprices of nine justices, themselves captives of current fashions, become "constitutional law."

The most spectacular illustration of the Living Document was the Court's 1973 ruling that abortion is protected by the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, of course; nobody - no justice of the Court, no state legislative minority, no newspaper editorial - had ever objected to the passage of laws against abortion on constitutional grounds.

Yet the Court ruled, in effect, that all 50 states had always violated the Constitution in legislating on abortion. Not only the most restrictive state laws, but even the most permissive were unconstitutional. So said the Court.

Had we missed something? Does the Constitution say anything we failed to notice is relevant to abortion?

Of course not. But in 1973 abortion had become a hot cause, so the Court's majority decided to give it the force of constitutional law. After all, what could the states do about it? If the Constitution is a Living Document, and only the U.S. Supreme Court can divine the direction of its "evolution," then the caprices of the Court's current majority at any given moment are authoritative, virtually infallible. It can reverse the tradition of centuries at will. No matter how arbitrary its rulings, the rest of us can only obey.

It's a weird parody of the rule of law. Law is supposed to be clear, stable, impersonal, predictable - at the opposite pole from human will and whim. But the Court's whim becomes virtual law. Lower courts follow it, and the states fall into line.

The Court not only can give pet passages of the Constitution a previously unsuspected breadth, finding a "right of privacy" in "penumbras, formed by emanations" here and there; it can also ignore passages it has no use for (the Second and Tenth Amendments, for example). It exercises a sort of line-item veto over the Constitution. Thus some parts of the Living Document become, quite arbitrarily, dead letters.

If the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, then yes, we still live under the Constitution, because we certainly live under the authority of the Supreme Court. But if the Constitution means what it says, and if it has a finite range of objective meanings, we abandoned it - or allowed it to be hijacked - long ago.

Can the real Constitution be restored? Probably not. Too many Americans depend on government money under programs the Constitution doesn't authorize, and money talks with an eloquence Shakespeare could only envy. Ignorant people don't understand The Federalist Papers, but they understand government checks with their names on them.

But honest people want to know where they stand, without illusion. And though they are few and far between, it is to them that this column is respectfully and lovingly addressed.

December 5, 2000 Reprinted with permission from SOBRAN'S. Copyright © 2000. All rights reserved. SOBRAN'S is distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate.