Was it George HW or Reagan who said "Facts are stupid"? I'm sure what our learned leader *meant* to say is "Facts are stupid until brought into connection with some general law." (Louis Agassiz) Beating at the framework with a bunch of facts which tend to contest the framework is not enough but it does help. It particularly helps if you can--without sounding hysterical--provide some alternative explanation. The non-hysterical part has become harder and harder to do.
>The peculiar thing is our lawyer said yesterday that we're focusing on
>"uncontroversial" issues of constitutionality -- as if the main base of
>support for the PATRIOT ACT is that people just don't know it's
>unconstitutional. Clear that up, that's all we need to do. Also, it's
>oft said that "liberty" transcends party boundaries and is nonideological
>-- as if "liberty" had one agreed upon, politically neutral meaning and
>reverence for the Constitution were nonideological.
Of course, in dealing with City Council types, you do need to give them nice words to say about why they're doing this. "I'm voting for this cause all these people are packing the council meeting and I want them to go away" might be the real reason, but soothing platitudes about constitutional rights and, if possible, saving the City money, are always a good bet.
We were able to get our County to pass an anti-PATRIOT Act resolution last year and they accompanied it with an instruction to staff, to deal with the gag provision, that if any County employee was contacted for information pursuant to the Act he or she should immediately contact the County Atty. On the theo ry that there's still such a thing as atty-client privilege. Are you trying to get that in there somewhere?
Jenny Brown