HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:02:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug22.185501.10359@Princeton.EDU> mgflax@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax) writes:
>
>1. The "Cartesian Product" of n people includes both
> a. People shaking hands with themselves, and,
> b. Each pair shaking hands *twice.
>
>  Please use mathematical terms more appropriately next time, Mr. Nilges!

Pedantry raises its head.  I am of course aware that the CP includes the
ordered pairs <x,x> and that <x,y>!=<y,x>.  I was more concerned to
convey concisely the sense of combinatorial explosion that occurs when
you speak of small groups making "contracts" rather than "laws"; the
cardinality is of the same order of magnitude given your unfortunately
pedantic display of knowledge.  On a net which includes many
mathematical sophisticates, I hope to save bandwidth by referring to
scientific ideas in this rather poetic fashion.  Unfortunately, the
savings in bandwidth is often cancelled out by these jejune objections
(for example, every time someone refers to Godel's results in a
discussion of indeterminacy, a flamewar erupts.)

No mas, Marshall, por favor.

>
>2. Mr. Nilges confuses the *appearance* of law and the *nature* of law.
>Because he phrased his agreement with the other hikers as a "law" and
>they used the mechanism of a "referendum" as a way of agreeing to it, he
>thinks that it's a law.  But he obscures the police power of the state
>in his (non)analysis.

Nilges is not a legal positivist: details at 11.  If of course, "law" is
what de judge say it is, then my Outward Bound pronouncement was not a
"law."  I suggest that you need to explore your assumptions in this
area.  If law is merely the valid operation of legal procedure, I for
one see no duty to obey it.  Legal positivism, like logical positivism,
lets too many questions go unanswered to be a decent philosophy.
The fact that it's the working philosophy of many contemporary American
lawyers (a philosophy I recently heard enunciated on the streets of New
York City by a trio of drunk lawyers braying about a victory they'd one
by means that were doubtless unspeakable) is hardly a point in its
favor.

>
>4. So I ask Mr. Nilges the following question: does he believe that
>there is an essential difference between contracts and laws, or not?

It appears that the libertarian needs there to be such a distinction for
he likes contracts and generally dislikes laws.  Tentatively, they seem
to be aspects of the same "stuff" rather than derivable from each
other.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16094 misc.education:3136 alt.activism:14965 va.general:74
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Final Solution for Pro-Lifers
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:07:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Aug15.160723.22919
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <3t7m6hn.feustel@netcom.com>, 
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) said:

> Do the >100 bombings of abortion clinics(none yet solved by the FBI
> as far as I know) qualify as federal crimes?

Probably, especially if anything of an interstate nature is charged
(my guess is that the _possibility_ of interstate criminal activity is
the hook on which the FBI's involvement in the investigation hangs).
Not to mention the possibility of federal crimes involved in the
illegal possession and detonation of explosives...

My intended point, though, was that very little if any of the alleged
crime involved in anti-abortion activities is _exclusively_ federal --
if you're accused of blowing up abortion clinics in New York and
Alabama, a Presidential pardon would let you off the hook with regards
to various interstate conspiracy charges, but it wouldn't help you
when police from New York or Alabama came calling on you.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16155 talk.politics.misc:40606
From: ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:39:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: asuvax.1992Aug19.183917.20462
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: misc.legal

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 	If you go on an interstate killing spree, is it double jeopardy to be
> tried for murder in more than one state?  I think we've made the case for
> separate court systems.

     This is your second strike, Brett; that's
as kind as I can put it, and frankly my restraint
surprises me.  You're talking about separate
murders, and hence separate crimes.  Where
does double jeopardy come in?  Besides, no one
has argued against multiple court systems: only
double jeopardy.

> 	New evidence?  What if it is in the defendant's favor?  And of course
> we can't have double standards.  So new evidence can mean a new trial.

     Yes, Brett, new evidence can mean a new
trial for the defendant, while once the
defendant is acquitted it cannot mean a new
trial for the prosecution.  That's the way the
founders saw fit to do it.  I gather you don't
like that arrangement, although I don't quite
see how that has any relevance to the issue.

> >      Where, exactly, did the fifth amendment make this distinction
> > between jurisdictions?
> 
> 	Interpretations.

     Very good, Brett, it appears you might
be making progress.  It would seem you do
understand that the reason the King case
isn't double jeopardy is because a handful
of men in positions of power once said so,
not because of anything actually written in
the Constitution.

     I'm not sure, however, that you realize
that powerful men and their convenient
"interpretations" come and go, but that what
the Constitution actually says is timeless.

--Starcap'n Ra       {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Judicial Review (again)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:50:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.170524.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>Well, I don't know what the Federalist Papers say, but keep in mind
>that the role of the Supreme Court was never defined.  No where in the
>Constitution does it say that the SC has the power to declare a law
>Unconstitutional.

It's implicitly there in Article III, Section 1, where it says "Judicial
power."

>In fact when the government was first formed under our present
>Constitution, the Justices rode around in circuit.  Individual
>Justices conducted trials (the trial of Aaron Burr for treason was
>conducted by Chief Justice John Marshall).
>
>It was Marshall who got around to declaring a law unconstitutional for
>the first time, and he was the third Chief Justice.

He was the fourth Chief Justice, but not the first to declare a law
unconstitutional.  The federal circuit courts had struck down Acts of
Congress before.  Cooper v Telfair, 4 US 14 (1800) and Ware v Hylton, 
3 US 199 (1796) both struck down state laws, and Justice James Iredell 
explicitly asserted the power of judicial review in Chisholm v Georgia,
2 US 419 (1793) and in Calder v Bull, 3 US 386 (1798), and Justice
Chase had acknowledged it in Cooper.  See also Hylton v United States,
3 US 171 (1796).

See David Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of
the Federal Courts, 1801-1835, 49 U Chi L Rev 646 (1982), from which
much of this information is taken.  See also Federalist No. 78.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             you can't throw me to the lions -- i'm charlton heston
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: allowable graduation requirements
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 09:33:39 EDT

In article <kaufman.713635554@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>>Regardless, the right to avoid involuntary is servitude *is* fundamental;
>>therefore, I am not satisfied by vague arguments that "other rights of students
>>are infringed" or that "its merely an educational requirement."
>
>OK. Now explain to me the way Jury duty works.

I'm not familiar with any challenges to Jury duty on 13th amendment ground,
so I can't "explain" how it works, I could only conjecture as to how the
courts would justify it.

(The same is true of the military conscription.)

For starters, it would probably be argued that both military conscription
and mandatory Jury service (I assume, but am not sure) were already known,
accepted, and not intended to be affected under the legislative intent of
the 13th amendment.


>And you still haven't
>reconciled your argument with the requirement for minors to go to school
>until age 16 (or be arrested for truancy).  If it is legal to force minors
>to go to school, we just call this service "education" and there is no
>problem with involuntary servitude.

I think there is a strong distinction, along the lines of what Mr. Sparks has
said.  However, whether that distinction is sufficient to warrant distinct
status under the 13th amendment, I could only guess.  (My guess is that they
would be treated differently, using an argument similar to the one Mr.
Sparks presented.)


>I suspect the legal definition of
>"involuntary servitude" carries with it the connotation of a much stronger
>master-apprentice type of indenture, which has the apprentice bound to serve
>the master for (his) personal gain.  It was not uncommon in the 17th and 18th
>centuries for children to be bound to a trade by their parents.

I'm sure that it carried that, but the amendment also clearly refers to
involuntary servitude "as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted..."

If you commit a crime, you might get sentenced to 75 hours of community
service.  If you don't, but go to school and want a diploma, you may have
to do the same.


As I have said, I have *not* made up my mind on this matter, but I do feel
strongly that, on its face, this is a violation of the 13th amendment, and
as such, the onus is upon those who would argue that it is *not* a
violation to present a clearly-framed argument as to why it is not.

I am *not* convinced by simply presenting pointers to various inconsistencies
in the application of the thirteenth amendment, though I do agree that they
suggest that it is plausible that a court might find the community service
requirement legal.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordnance
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 22:12:11 EDT

In article <1992Aug14.040133.27625@aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>My city is planning an ordnance that would require property owners to
>remove graffiti from their property within 24 hours. Penalties for not
>doing so can be $500 fine or 6 months in jail. I strongly object to this
>type of action. It is penalizing a property owner for the failure of the
>city. It seems to me that it is unconstitutional. I might want to keep the
>graffiti as symbolic speech on what I think of my city management.
>
>What do others think of this ordnance?

I think you're right.

And how would they presume to distinguish between "graffiti" and something
that the property owner *chose* to put there in the first place?

I don't know what makes them think that they can control your decoration.
It is common to zone out junk yards (i.e., restrictions on the number of
unregistered vehicles you can have on your property), and often, in urban
areas, to require that grass not be allowed to reach a height that presents
a hazard by attracting animals--but I can't see where there is any
justification for the kind of restriction that you mention...


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Keywords: Third party beneficiary
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 01:41:12 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>>How about if Mr. Darcy learns a little more about the law, say, by opening
>>any law-school case book on "Contract Law" to the section on "Third Party
>>Beneficiaries?"  If the joint venture consisting of a man and a girl
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
....
>Am I being sexist, or am I right to believe that he should have said
>a man and a woman?

I suspect that he is deliberately baiting you.


Keith
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:48:08 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <PA146008.243.714182108@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu sez:
>
>     Bank Robbery is a state crime, and the federal government does not have
>the jurisdiction to try those cases.

I suggest you consult 18 U.S.C. sec. 2113, a federal criminal statute
currently captioned "Bank robbery and incidental crimes".  Doing so
may save you from having to serve 20 years in a federal penitentiary.

-- 
blah blah Communism blah blah Berlin wall blah blah school prayer blah blah
slick blah blah Communism blah blah Navy flier blah abortion on demand blah
blah Hillary blah blah Communism blah blah thirty million new j -- er, blah
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Advice for first year law student?
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:12:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
  
>I find the Law-In-A-Flash cards very helpful, but I suspect that that varies 
>from individual to individual.

Yes indeed, they are good.  (I start 3rd-year Monday.)

What's also been *excellent* for me, and apparently little-known-about,
is CALI, Computer-Assisted Law Instruction.  Many law-libraries now have
computer centers (where students can work on their legal writing-assign-
ments), and a good number of those that do also carry the CALI exercises.
I used the evidence exercises for weeks, literally, and found it extrememly
helpful with complex hearsay hypotheticals, for example.  The quality
of the exercises varies widely from subject to subject, but evidence is
about the best.  (I ended up with a good grade.)

Also good as far as really simplifying things for review is the Blonde's
series.  Case summaries that are more concise than Legalines, and subject
outlines, in one small book.  Don't abandon the casebooks for Blonde's,
by any means; but I ended up never opening my Legalines again after finding
Blonde's.

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com  /or/  |"You sound like a man|
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us    |with a rubber nose." |
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |vox/fax: 1.510.645.1883| -- One-Lung Bill    |
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |350 Perkins St., #108  |     Remmer (deceased)
_l//______________________\\l_|Oakland,_CA__94610-3422|_____________________|_
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 04:13:24 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug16.211146.9792@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>I do find Mark's scenario troubling, but I also find troubling the
>notion of allowing a person to be tried again and again for the same
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>conduct until a charge sticks.

Even if you accept the "seperate sovereigns" doctrine, this still only
gives the government two chances to convict.  Where does "again and
again" come from.  The double jeopardy clause currently requires
lesser included offenses to be charged with the primary offense, so
the only way for the same sovereign to have multiple prosecutions
(barring a mistrial) is if the action in question genuinely involves
more than one substantive offense AND <if I remember correctly> there
new evidence is discovered which warrants prosecuting the second
offense after the first acquittal.  


>I'm aware, of course, that technically this doesn't qualify as double
>jeopardy. But I think this is a case where our intuitions tell us 
>something different from what we're told by the Supreme Court. A
>subsequent federal prosecution for conduct that failed to win a 
>state conviction *feels* like double jeopardy, even if the charges
>are technically different, and even if we admit that the separate
>sovereigns involved are vindicating different interests in the welfare of
>their citizens.


I'm not so sure it feels like double jeopardy.  The point of the
double jeopardy clause (in my mind) is to prevent the harrasment of
unfavored individuals by powerful prosecutors.  Giving the Feds a
chance to intervene where civil rights have been violated doesn't
appear to be an abuse the kind of which the jeopardy clause is meant
to prevent.

Do you feel the same way about Al Capone being convicted for violating
the section of the IRS code which requires reporting income from
criminal activities?  

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Xref: sparky misc.legal:16180 talk.politics.misc:40752
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bank robbery laws (was: double jeopardy)
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:24:27 GMT
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Aug19.015046.3591@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu sez:

>	Rob a federal bank if you don't think so.  The Feds made it a federal
>crime back in the 70s.

Try the 1930s.  Section 2113's predecessor statutes (12 U.S.C. secs.
588a, 588b, and 588c) were enacted or revised in 1934, 1935, 1937, and
1940. 

(Normally I wouldn't bother picking a minor nit like this, but the
above is an excellent example of Brett's tendency to make up the facts
as he goes along.)

-- 
blah blah Communism blah blah Berlin wall blah blah school prayer blah blah
slick blah blah Communism blah blah Navy flier blah abortion on demand blah
blah Hillary blah blah Communism blah blah thirty million new j -- er, blah
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Equal Rights Amendment
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:56:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug12.171725.6315@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
> >It is no longer legal for insurance comanies to charge
> >differential rates based on sex. Boys don't have to pay
> >any more for car insurance than girls do. Too bad this
> >didn't come until after I moved away from home.

Too bad for women because they aren't the auto insurance risks that
men are.  (Testosterone poisoning, I suspect).

> >I believe someone sued (successfully, I think) a dry
> >cleaner because the cleaner charged more to launder
> >women's blouses than to clean men's shirts. It always
> >*has* seemed strange to me that women's dry cleaning
> >bills are bigger than men's are.
> [...]
> 
> These results are more likely the result of antidiscrimination laws
> than the state ERA (which probably only applies to the state, not to
> businesses).
> 
> Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Unfortunately, it wasn't clear that ERA would actually be so limited
at the national level.  The LANGUAGE was quite clear; unfortunately,
liberals have a long history of refusing to recognize a difference
between the government and private companies, and more than a few
ERA advocates I ran into in the 1970s asserted that it would be used
to prohibit private discrimination as well.  This is why I went from
an ERA supporter to an ERA opponent -- it looked like yet another
opportunity for liberals to interfere in the private actions of
consenting adults.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
From: hagstrop@oberon.mathcs.carleton.edu (Paul Hagstrom)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: National Choice Legislation
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:23:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1992Aug21.143611.6010@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> leo@cbnewsh.cb.att.com  
(leonard.oppenheimer) writes:

> My understanding of the statute is that Congress wants to make it illegal
> for any state to ban or restrict abortions, at least for some part of the
> pregnancy.  I really don't know any of the details.

Not to be picky, but I very much doubt that "Congress" as an entity wants to do  
any such thing.  We'd be lucky if it were half, I'd think.  Perhaps a few  
people are proposing such a statute, but I wouldn't attribute that to Congress  
as a whole.
--
schmotsignature.
Paul Hagstrom
(hagstrop@carleton.edu)
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: recording phone conve
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:27:28 EST
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Executive Networks Information


Ann Sera, in a message to All on 08-18-92 at 1:34pm, said:

AS>|Does anyone know if it is legal to tape a telephone
   |conversation between oneself
   |and another party *without* expressly advising the other party that
   |the phone conversation is being recorded?
   |___________________________________________________________________

          In New York, it is legal to record any conversation to which
          the recorder is a party.  In Connecticut, it is not.  I don't
          know about NJ.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #11645  As easy as 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal