James Without disagreeing with your larger argument, I just want to
point out that your statement below makes no sense whatsoever. It's plainly an argument from analogy, and not a very coherent one.
------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009
10:46:15 -0500 From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) The Politics Of Gene Wolfe To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Message-ID: <609D2162EB2D44C9AB6D5158A8CDA99E at eMachinePC> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
--------------------------------
Furthermore, the amendment grants this "right" to "the people." To read this amendment as pro-regulators like to would mean that the first amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" would only apply to the right of state governments to assemble and to make official statements to the Federal government.
------------------------------