>Of course it makes sense to speak of rights that are not recognized and
>even explicitly condemned in law.
Of course.
That is e.g. just what the Declaration
>of Independence did. And the right of a subject people to resist
>occupation has been asserted at the UN as a matter of international law --
>a right rarely countenanced in the laws of the occupier. --CGE
Not relevant here. Who's occupying us?
jks
>
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
> > > inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
> > > Government,
> > > they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or
> > > their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
> > > --A. Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
> >
> > Nice try, C.G., and lofty political rhetoric, but not law. In fact,
> > Lincoln was immediately to put ther full weight of the United States
> > against some people who triedto exercise that "right," which he always
> > denied existed in law. It is illegal under a whole bunch of laws to
> > actively try to overthrow the government, as opposed to abstractly
> > advocate its overthrow. jks
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp