William Thomas
                         P.O. Box 27217
                    Washington, D.C.   20038
                        September 9, 1988





Dear Mr. Davis:

     I have noticed that I have not recieved any reply to a letter
which, I believe, was delivered to your office on May 6th.  Copy
enclosed, less Church of the Brethern acceptance speech.  .

     If memory serves correctly, I hand delivered a copy of this
letter to our office while you were out of town.  Perhaps I am
mistaken, maybe my letter was lost in the shuffle, or whatever.  In
any event I still believe careful consideration will reveal that,
should these Amendments be adopted as law, they would trigger an
inevitable legal chain reaction which would revolutionize human
society.

     If you disagree I would still appreciate knowing the specific
grounds of your dissent, as your opinion might provide an objective
point from which a course adjustment might be  trianglulated.

                          Your Friend,



 





                           May 6, 1988

Dear Mr. Davis:

     I hope you will not consider my questions impertintent, and
that you will be able to find the time to answer them.

     I also hope you can find the time to read the citation that
the Church of the Brethern gave me and my acceptance speech.  These
are not offered out of vanity, but rather in an attempt to more
fully explain myself to you.

     Perhaps you will also consider that our proposed Amendments to
the United States and Soviet Constitutions are something quite
different than a mere treaty. 

     Nothwithstanding what was said to the Church of the Brethern
I fully realize that there are certain aspects of this unreal world
which, in the interests of change, must be reckoned with.  

     As I understand it you postulate that anarchy exists between
the nation states.  At also appears you believe that anarchy does
not exist within the nation states by virtue of the fact that laws
exist to regulate behavior within those states.

     What makes our proposed Amendments quite different from a run
of the mill treaty is the fact that when adopted they will become
part of the national laws of each respective nation state.

     Clearly this would be at least a first step toward universal
law.

     I believe that careful consideration will reveal that, should
these Amendments be accepted as law, they would trigger an
inevitable chain reaction of law which would revolutionize human
society.

     If you disagree I would appreciate knowing the specific
grounds of your dissent.

                                   Your friend,


                                   Thomas