HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:11:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.070641.9436@anasazi.com> karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes:
>So do you contend that the practice of bundling hundreds (thousands?) of
>separate spending items togther, calling it a "bill," and submitting it to
>the President with a "take it or leave it" attitude IS consistent with
>original intent?  

Yes.  It's called compromise.  I think Madison discussed it in the Federalist
Papers.

>What about requiring the President to spend every penny
>appropriated - that didn't come about until the Nixon administration as I
>recall.

Because if the President doesn't spend every penny, that's a veto without
any means for the other branches to overrule it.  Clearly unconstitutional.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:33:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.151414.14184@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
 
>In <168BB89EF.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec11.225632.20901@oakhill.sps.mot.com> on
>>Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:56:32 GMT you write:
>>
>>
>>Women were not given the right to vote, and it took an amendment to
>>change that.
>
>On a national level, quite true.  However, any State could have
>elected at any time to allow women to vote for Federal representatives
>and they would have been fully within their rights to do so (I think
>-- I'll have to look at the exact wording about who is allowed to
>vote).  In any case, your argument seems to be that because there are
>SOME things that require an amendment, that ALL things must require an
>amendment.  That simply doesn't seem to follow.
>
>--
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
 
Some things were specified quite clearly, and those take an amendment
to change.  I believe a state could have allowed women to vote in
state, but not federal elections, since the Constitution said only
males could vote.
 
Other things were left open.  Congress was forbidden to outlaw the
slave trade for a certain period of time.  After that, they could if
they so chose via legislation, but they were not required to do so.
Congress can pass laws on many things, either because the powers are
explicitly granted, or because the powers granted are very broad, like
the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses.
 
States are granted powers to do whatever they please, as long as their
laws do not violate explicit clauses in the Constitution, or encroach
on powers granted to the federal government.
 
All of this is subject to interpretation.  You and I can have any
opinions we choose, but only the courts have power to make definite
rulings in the grey areas.  Once they do that, we can agree or disagree
with the decision, but the decision stands until overturned.
 
Right now, you and I have different opinions in a grey area right now.
The courts have not decided, so the matter is still open for
discussion.  I am choosing a more strict interpretation of the
Constitution than you are, which limits what the states can do.  If I
am wrong, the courts will say so in a few years.  We will see then.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:29:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.225632.20901@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>The country needs term limits, a balanced budget, and a line-item veto.

	I think of term limits as an ON/OFF switch, an automatic
binary reaction, that considers but the instructions for when to
switch to off. In other words, it reminds me of why we need 
fuzzy logic- to make computers practical, which works better
in many cases than behaving strictly logically. Do we want to 
automate this process? Remember, term limits will replace the
vote to a degree. Instead of a Congressfolk losing his/her seat
due to the vote, he/she will automatically lose the seat. This
becomes a Kirk/Spock logical/practical sort of question.
I don't think automatic decisions are the answer to an uninformed
electorate. It seems the answer to an uninformed electorate would
be an informed one.Are presidential term limits practical? I dunno.
Is 8 years long enough for one basic economic practice? Is a
guaranteed change in economic approach detrimental? helpful? Finally,
besides the electorate voting and studying who to vote for, I
think we might look more to making it easier for those not in
office to compete. Change is necessary, but automating our
republican democracy just doesn't seem like the "fix"; it seems
like a "patch". Too many patches, and we'll have a new form of
gov't. Term limits won't "restore" the scenario envisioned by
our forefathers- getting everyone involved, and disallowing
quasi-monarchic rule by incumbants, might. IMO.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24614 talk.politics.misc:64392 alt.politics.libertarian:2671
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Argument for broadening the veto power
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:48:51 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <visser.724448862@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>	I dont think cutting the president into the process is any worse than
>having ten or less members of congress have total control over the process
>as happens now.

However, it does make the president much more powerful.  I feel that line
item vetos are a problem in states, because it makes already-obscure
representatives even less powerful.  It also gives the president power to
demand his own pork in exchange for any particular item on a bill.

My preferred solution would be to create a separate office, much like the
Fed, whose whole purpose would be to line-item veto pork before the
president exercised his option to sign or veto.  It likely would require a
constitutional ammendment.  Removing the line-item veto from the political
arena (even if only a small distance, as in the Fed) could lead to a
substantial reduction in pork, as opposed to whatever pork the president
insisted upon.

Mike Huben

Anyone who in discussion relies upon authority uses, not his understanding,
but his memory.  - Leonardo Da Vinci  "Notebooks" c. 1500
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:36:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.235918.4383@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
> In article <1992Dec13.070641.9436@anasazi.com> karl@anasazi.com
> (Karl Dussik) writes:
> 
>>So do you contend that the practice of bundling hundreds (thousands?) of
>>separate spending items togther, calling it a "bill," and submitting it to
>>the President with a "take it or leave it" attitude IS consistent with
>>original intent? 
> 
> We could push for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting this "bundling".
> Then the President wouldn't "need" a line item veto...  [BTW, I believe
> Michigan has such a clause in their Consititution, restricting a bill to
> one subject]

Except that the budget of the government is ususally consdidered
one subject.  One of the arguments for a line-item veto would be that
it would allow the President more flexibility in controlling spending.

Presently if Congress appropriates money, the President has to spend
it.  Nixon tried to stop runaway spending in the 1970's by impounding
funds.  I forgot if that Presidential peragative was taken away from
him by law, or by court decision.  In any case, a line-item veto would
go a long towards reducing pork in the budget. Congress is affected
more by special interests than the President, who has a much bigger
voter power base.   === Al Sparks
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24657 or.politics:740
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Joe Bob)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,or.politics
Subject: Re: Packwood's Indiscretions
Date: 20 Dec 92 11:40:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: agora.BzK33z.3y8
Distribution: usa
Organization: a gora

In article <1992Dec20.020844.21145@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>It's curious and suggestive that the story broke 1 month after the
>election. Is there any information on whether the timing is sheer
>lucky coincidence for Packwood?


  Obviously you haven't been following this story.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:27:08 GMT

In article <12134@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
 
>In <168B98CF3.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>
>|In article <12063@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
>|mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>|
>|>If this were true what would happen to other ballot access laws that the
>|>states have passed, such as getting petitions signed, restricting felons,
>|>requiring that someone live in the district that they want to represent.
>|>
>|>I believe that the majority of term limit laws that were recently passed
>|>were not true term limits as most people understand that term, but were
>|>instead ballot access laws.  They state that after X terms, the incumbent
>|>will have to run as a right in candidate.
>|>
>|>--
>|>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
>|
>|States have the right to determine the time, place and manner of
>|elections, and to establish reasonable requirements for getting on the
>|ballot.  Requiring candidates to live in a district seems reasonable,
>|as does requiring a person to demonstrate some reasonable chance of
>|being elected via signatures.
>|
>|Right now, any citizen can get a place on the ballot by following the
>|rules.  The rules make it difficult, but not impossible.  Your "ballot
>|access laws" create a new class of citizens other than felons who
>|cannot get a place on the ballot by following any procedure whatsoever.
>|They are effectively being denied an equal chance to be elected to an
>|office.
>|
>|Term limits are, in and of themselves, a bad idea.  If you don't like
>|an elected official, work to defeat him/her.  If you can't do that,
>|tough luck.  If you really want to enact term limits, you *might* have
>|hit on a Constitutional method of doing so.  The courts will rule on
>|that in a few years, and I think the laws will be thrown out.  If you
>|want to impose term limits, a Constitutional amendment is the sure way
>|to do it, and in my opinion, the right way.  Certainly, it is harder to
>|do....it is supposed to be.
>
>Actually there is a very simple way to get your name back on the ballot.
>Either wait one term and then run again, or run for a different office.
>
Is this true?  I have not seen the text of the laws, but my
understanding is that they limit the total number of terms, not the
number of consecutive terms.
 
>I disagree with you about term limits, I view them as the first step in
>regaining control of government.
>
Your opinion.  The arguments agains term limits have been hashed over
here before.  I view them more as the first step toward giving power to
unelected bureaucrats and staffers who are not subject to term limits.
>--
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: List of New Members of Congress w/Offices?
Summary: Need a list of new Congressional Reps with office #'s
Keywords: new members
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:36:47 GMT

Can anyone point me to a list of the new Congress with office
assignments and phone numbers?  Does this exist yet?

Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:14:14 GMT

In <168BB89EF.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.225632.20901@oakhill.sps.mot.com> on
>Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:56:32 GMT you write:
> 
> 
>Women were not given the right to vote, and it took an amendment to
>change that.

On a national level, quite true.  However, any State could have
elected at any time to allow women to vote for Federal representatives
and they would have been fully within their rights to do so (I think
-- I'll have to look at the exact wording about who is allowed to
vote).  In any case, your argument seems to be that because there are
SOME things that require an amendment, that ALL things must require an
amendment.  That simply doesn't seem to follow.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: root@moller3.austin.ibm.com ()
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:49:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Damn little.

In article <1992Dec12.043001.10165@unixland.natick.ma.us> cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer) writes:

[...]

>
>So that raises the question -- why should an otherwise qualified
>representative who has been in Congress for 12 years be treated
>differently than one who has been in Congress for 6 years?
>Certainly *some* senior congress critters are corrupt or 
>ineffective, but the same could be said of junior congress
>critters, so I don't think that reason is valid.  Does anyone 
>see a legitimate and important state interest in making a
>distinction?
>

Congress critters accrete power over time through the senority system.
To the extent that the power of newer representatives is diminished by
the concentration of power in the older representatives, this system is
un-democratic and violates, in effect if not in law, proportionality of
representation in both the House and Senate.  I think rectifying this
condition constitutes "a legitimate and important state interest."

>Bill Cramer
>
>251 West Central Street, Suite 142      | "If the law supposes *that*,...
>Natick, MA 01760 USA                    |    the law is an ass, an idiot."
>Internet: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us  |        -- Dickens
>CIS: 70322,3412                         |
>


-- 
Chris Moller (moller@austin.ibm.com)

IBM pays absolutely no attention to my opinions, ergo the 
foregoing cannot possibly represent its position.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Souter and Kennedy
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:42:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.002003.29386@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>But at least some Justices (Souter & Kennedy) brown-nose the N.Y. Times

Evidence?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:06:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec3.011755.25925@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <ByL0DL.10zB@austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
[lots deleted]
>>Push for the line item veto as well.  
>
>Furrfu!  Talk about subverting original intent and screwing with checks
>and balances.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

So do you contend that the practice of bundling hundreds (thousands?) of
separate spending items togther, calling it a "bill," and submitting it to
the President with a "take it or leave it" attitude IS consistent with
original intent?  What about requiring the President to spend every penny
appropriated - that didn't come about until the Nixon administration as I
recall.

Karl Dussik
-- 
"Martin Marietta's annual revenues will nearly double with the acquisition
of GE's operations - from 3 billion dollars in sales to almost 11 billion."
John McChesney (sp?), NPR, 11/24/92.  Your education system at work.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24591 talk.politics.misc:64192
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:56:36 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <168BB85F0.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:

|In article <12135@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
|mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
| 
|>In <lif60aINN2e8@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
|>
|>|Mark Wilson) writes:
|>||> In other words, Do you feel that states should be required to place on the
|>||> ballot anybody who so requests?
|>||>
|>|I thought this is what I answered.  I believe that the courts will rule that
|>|states cannot not create unequal rules for ballot access.
|>
|>But don't other forms of ballot access rules also create inequalities.  That
|>is some people are able to meet them and some aren't.
|>
|Not at all...the inability of some people to meet the rules does not
|create an inequality.  Creating different rules for different people
|does.  Remember, the law makes it illegal for both the rich and poor to
|sleep under bridges.

The same rule applies to everybody, two times and out.

BTW, with this argument, inability does not equate to inequality could
be used to support my position as well.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:48:43 GMT

In article <77524@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
 
>In <168BB85F0.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>
>|In article <12135@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
>|mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>|
>|>In <lif60aINN2e8@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>|>
>|>|Mark Wilson) writes:
>|>||> In other words, Do you feel that states should be required to place on the
>|>||> ballot anybody who so requests?
>|>||>
>|>|I thought this is what I answered.  I believe that the courts will rule that
>|>|states cannot not create unequal rules for ballot access.
>|>
>|>But don't other forms of ballot access rules also create inequalities.  That
>|>is some people are able to meet them and some aren't.
>|>
>|Not at all...the inability of some people to meet the rules does not
>|create an inequality.  Creating different rules for different people
>|does.  Remember, the law makes it illegal for both the rich and poor to
>|sleep under bridges.
>
>The same rule applies to everybody, two times and out.
>
>BTW, with this argument, inability does not equate to inequality could
>be used to support my position as well.
>
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
 
Someone else posted about the intent of the ballot rules, and the
response of the courts to them.  If the intent of the rules is to limit
the names on the ballot to those who have demonstrated a reasonable
chance of being elected, they are valid.  A candidate can demonstrate
that either by gathering signatures, or by getting the nomination of a
party which has shown serious support in previous elections.
 
Your intent here is to create a new class of people who are ineligible
for election.  What valid state purpose is served here?  Why should
these people be denied their right to run for office?  If voters think
they are not doing their job properly, they will lose.  If not, then
why should they be ineligible?
 
Yes, your rule applies to everyone, but it still creates an unequal
class of citizens.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:09:40 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <c6aO02Vj2eNt01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>In article <1992Dec13.163402.7080@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) 
>writes:
>> Like any other contract,  you must refer to the
>> plain language of the contract [you know, the parol evidence rule], to
>> determine what it means. 

>Parol evidence is admissible to resolve ambiguities.


Right.  But you only do that if you can't resolve the question in the
four corners of the contract.  There has to be real ambiguity, not
just arguably different interpretations.  

There's no ambiguity in the Constitution on these questions.  There's
not the slightest hint that bundling bills and requiring the president
to spend all apprpriated funds in unconstitutional.

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: e91petmo@odalix.ida.liu.se (Peter /\/\odin)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:05:38 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:


>This thread is still going?  I first saw this one back in September.

It'll get a real boost in '96!

--
|=Peter Modin - Responses to: e91petmo@und.ida.liu.se===========|
|                             modin@lysator.liu.se              |
| Dept. of of Computer Science, Linkoping University, Sweden    |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|         /// /\                ___                             |
|        /// /  \  |\    /| |  /   \  /\                        |
|   \\\ /// /____\ | \  / | | |  ___ /__\                       |
|====\\X//=/======\|==\/==|=|==\___//====\======================|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal