Well, I already know this stuff, I was asking for your op or, if you didn't have much of one, then about the scuttlebutt in your circles. Or, more specifically, my question is: why is it that little scholarship or scholarly debate on e-lists seems to raise the issue of the prior standing of colonial "rights of man" given that "original intent" is such an overwhelmingly central feature of the gun control debate and given that so much of legal argument *is* based on tradition. [particularly given that prior to the C, constitution meant the entire body of law, precendent, custom, tradition, etc. Constitution, as in "body"]
Now I'm laughing reading Doug tell Wojtek he's scary b/c Doug you are always on about what a piece of b.s. the C is. Any time anyone brings it up, you blast 'em with the "Why is the C a sacred document?" argument that makes it look like any appeal to the C is a blind allegiance to something that is, at root, fraudulent.
As for this debate over the C be/t Justin and Woj: I think that you've misread Woj's polemics. Firstly, "tecnicality" was raised in a specific context, that of the Mumia case. That's how I read Woj's concern. And, as usual, Wojtek is correcting the left for their rather snobby attitudes about Joe Sixpack and Suzy Winecooler. Which is to say, Wojtek might not agree with people's views, but I think he's trying to suggest why an arrogant left that pays these views no mind in its strategizing is getting nowhere and the Limbaugh's et al do instead. At any rate, Woj, I pray to Isis that this is whatyou're doing b/c I can't reconcile your comments to me last July re the cops as ratfuckers. How do you reconcile that with the views you've taken here recently re the rest of the criminal injustice system? How can you say that cops are ratfuckers but not the rest of the DAs office?
Kelley