HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov19.070028.27622@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Nov19.214624.15573@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<1992Nov20.055358.25021@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:04:53

In article <1992Nov20.055358.25021@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
nes: 23

   In article <1992Nov19.214624.15573@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
   >Evolution merely states that based on the evidence we've found and current
   >behavoir, this is the best explanantion of how man and other flora and fauna
   >reached their present form. 

   I'm afraid evolution, as they teach it in public schools, is quite
   a bit more absolute that that: It states that this is the correct 
   explanation of how life reached its present form (and if the teacher
   is unusually good) a few bits of evideince to demonstrate that
   this is clearly the correct explanation. I don't know of any
   teachers that risk confusing students with "we aren't sure, but 
   this seems to be a good explanation..." lectures. As presented,
   that seems to be in conflict with the First Amendment's
   "free exercise" clause: It disagrees with a widespread religious
   teaching, so it is, essentially, publicly-funded indoctronation
   that a specific religious view is wrong. If the schools simply
   offered the students the available evidence, and let them
   draw their own conclusions, this objection would not apply.
   However, such free thinking doesn't really fit into modern
   public schools...

					      Frank Crary
					      CU Boulder

There isn't time to give all theories equal weight, and like it or
not evolution dominates scientific thought and also general
intellectual thought.  However, there are a large number of people
who adhere to creationist doctrines of one kind or another.  I
would go this far to accomodate them.  Let there be an annual
debate on creationism vs. evolution in each high school.  The
creationists would have to supply the debaters for their side
and scientific societies the debaters for the other side.  I
would be willing to be one of the debaters for the scientific
side.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:37:09 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

[...]
>Such disagreement would not be "advice", which is by definition non-binding.
[...]

Tell that to my thesis advisor :-)

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 00:18:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.211433.19464@sei.cmu.edu> rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) writes:
>In article <BxtFLA.6oD@cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>|>      1987: Block Bork
>|>        The ACLU, changing a 51-year-old policy of
>|>        neutrality on Supreme Court candidates, mounted
>|>        a national campaign to defeat the nomination of
>|>        Judge Robert Bork.  Bork, the ACLU said, posed
>|>        an extraordinary threat to fundamental liberties
>|>        guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and to the role
>|>        of the Supreme Court as the guardian of those
>|>        rights.  A majority of Senators agreed and rejected
>|>        his nomination.
>
>This alone is enough to keep me from ever entertaining membership -- Bork
>knows more Constitutional Law than the ACLU's 2000 attorneys put together.

After reading his post-nomination book on the matter, published by
that bastion of freedom, the American Enterprise Institute, I'd
rephrase this. Bork has a long history of studying constitutional law.
He has, however, gained a set of opinions about the matter that are
significantly at variance with many (but not all) other constitutional
scholars. Since nobody has anything but opinions about the
Constitution, it seems perfectly reasonable that he should be judged
by some people to have sufficiently inappropriate ones for the job.

Before you leap to First Amendment or other constitutional defences of
Bork's opinions: this is not about what Bork is allowed to say or
believe or write about. The Constitution does not offer any protection
against majoritarian opinion concerning who should be on the Court.
Would you insist that any person with a Bork's background in
constitutional law be eligible for the Court, and that the Senate
should pay no attention to their opinions ?

For what its worth, I think that Bork has an overwhelmling simplistic
notion of the sociology of judges, and that this is his greatest
weakness in analysing the role of the SC in upholding the
Constitution. He may know the law, but he appears to know squat about
the interaction of human beings within it.

-- paul


-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:03:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.171739.27144@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>Isn't it a bit fraudulent to claim to support the bill of rights when you
>>choose to ignore certain parts of it?

>No; they don't ignore it.  They just don't interpret it the way you do.
>Maybe they're wrong, but they aren't ignoring it.

I'd disagree: The ACLU has invented or adopted very doubtfull interpertations,
to rationalize their practice, of ignoring parts of the Bill of Rights.
Their emphasis is certainly and clearly political, which calls into 
question their claims of political neutrality.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So what's a religion ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:02:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.214210.1698@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>I think the usual view is that in general the "free exercise" clause
>doesn't override laws that are of general applicability and serve
>substantial state interests having nothing to do with religion.

I think the interpertation is slightly wider than that: I believe that
Prohibition was not enforced against wine used in Catholic and Jewish
religious practices.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.001854.21773@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>...Bork has a long history of studying constitutional law.
>He has, however, gained a set of opinions about the matter that are
>significantly at variance with many (but not all) other constitutional
>scholars. Since nobody has anything but opinions about the
>Constitution...

That's a very debatable point, but in any case...

>...it seems perfectly reasonable that he should be judged
>by some people to have sufficiently inappropriate ones for the job.

I don't see how holding unpopular opinions should disqualify a
Supreme Court Justice. Hugh Black, for example, held many unpopular
views on constitutional interpertation, but he is considered to be
one of the "great" Justices of this century.

>Would you insist that any person with a Bork's background in
>constitutional law be eligible for the Court, and that the Senate
>should pay no attention to their opinions ?

Actually, I would: My opinion of the "advice and consent" is that
the Senate should accept anyone technically qualified and able to
do the job (e.g. exactly what it means when in the case of appointed
executive officials like the Secretary of Interior. In these cases,
the Senate doesn't subject appointees to political litmus tests.)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:23:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.065325.26510@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>The Persident choses Justices, not the Senate. The Senate offers
>their "advice and consent." I take that to mean a veto over
>completely unqualified nominees, or those who are _aboslutely_
>and totally in conflict with senatorial opinion (e.g. to the 
>extent that the Senate doesn't think the Constitution could
>survive the appointment.) Simply disagreeing on debatable political
>issues does not, in my opinion, fall within the Senate's "advice
>and consent" powers.

Why not?

The Constitution pointedly doesn't give the criteria that the Senate should
use in choosing whether or not to consent to a choice.

Just as freedom of speech doesn't mean "freedom of speech I agree with",
consent doesn't mean "consent only for reasons I agree with".

The Senate doesn't even need to GIVE a reason for turning down a possible
Justice, although it should to fulfill the "advice" portion.

>Advice, by it's very nature, is not binding (If you have to follow it,
>it is an order, not advice.) I find the "consent" part far more
>meaningful: The Senate may not consent for political reasons.

Exactly, assuming you mean "the Senate has the power to not give consent for 
political reasons".  If you mean "the Senate is not allowed to withhold
consent if the reason for withholding consent is political", I don't agree
at all.  For me to agree to that, you'ld have to show me where it says that
in the Constitution.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

First Rule of History:
	History doesn't repeat itself -- historians merely repeat each
	other.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6636 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1140 alt.politics.usa.misc:606 talk.politics.misc:60904 alt.activism:18997
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: War on Rights: Pittsburgh 1991 Articles - pt.I
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:27:51 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu
Originator: news@stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov19.001455.4890@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>	Government seizures victimize innocent
>

If anyone wishes to ftp the text version of Presumed Guilty as a complete
piece, it is on ftp.css.itd.umich.edu in /poli/Essays/presumed.

ftp.eff.org has both text and postscript versions online.


Paul Southworth                    |           ftp ftp.css.itd.umich.edu
(Not speaking for)                 |         Political Archives in /poli
Information Technology Division    |     Writable incoming directory on:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |         redspread.css.itd.umich.edu 

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:17:39 GMT

In article <Bxwt89.79D@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>I noticed that in the list of constitutionally protected rights, the ACLU
>doesn't recognize the right to keep and bear arms, but that it DOES recognize
>the right to privacy which is not listed in the constitution (not that I
>disagree with the general idea of the government keeping out of private
>affairs, but it would have to follow under the 9th amendment or something).

>Isn't it a bit fraudulent to claim to support the bill of rights when you
>choose to ignore certain parts of it?

No; they don't ignore it.  They just don't interpret it the way you do.
Maybe they're wrong, but they aren't ignoring it.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [Daily Illini] High Court might hear hate-crime case.
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:44:56 GMT

According to my campus newspaper:

"Illinois has joined 29 other states in urging the U.S. Supreme Court
to make a ruling that would protect the right of states to legislate
harsher penalties for people convicted of hate crimes."

If you have gopher, you can find the whole story, with the command:

gopher  -p "1/News/Daily Illini Newspaper/1992/November/18" gopher.cso.uiuc.edu

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.theory
From: bobh@troy.cc.bellcore.com (hettmansperger,robert)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 14:09:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.070404.18521@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <visser.721951171@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance
>Visser) writes
>
>>Despite what the media and the politicians say, the thing that killed bork
>>was his actions during watergate years before.   His blind willingness
>>to obey nixon did more damage to him than the ACLU could ever have
>>dreamed of doing.
>
>If no-one had fired Archie Cox we would have ended up with a Justice
>Department with no-one in it.  Why would that have been better?

It has less to do with right/wrong or better/worse and more to do with 
political revenge.

-Bob

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:50:24 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1992Nov18.012950.29966@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>Actually, I would: My opinion of the "advice and consent" is that
>the Senate should accept anyone technically qualified and able to
>do the job (e.g. exactly what it means when in the case of appointed
>executive officials like the Secretary of Interior. In these cases,
>the Senate doesn't subject appointees to political litmus tests.)

You don't seem to be giving any force to the word "advice".  As to
executive officials, there's much less reason to apply political tests
because they are under the control of the President anyway, who is
responsible for their acts.  Supreme Court justices, on the other
hand, have life tenure and are normally answerable to nobody.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."  (Blake)
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6579 alt.activism:18871 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1080 soc.history:9439 talk.politics.theory:4939
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:29:29 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


	This is not history but what amounts to offical propoganda from
a "political" organization.  Please do not cross-post political material
to soc.history.

	This is a request.  I dont care about the merits of the ACLU one way
or the other.  you are cross-posting to four other groups besides soc.history
will you please not post such material to soc.history.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6594 alt.politics.usa.misc:595 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1097 talk.politics.misc:60505
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
Subject: [misc.legal] USA: War on Rights
Keywords: Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

A repost from misc.legal:

From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Subject: Re: Title Insurance
Keywords: Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:15:52 GMT
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.


	
In article <1992Nov13.202055.11894@cpqhou.compaq.com>, thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:
>...the Jones' are engaged in drug activity.  Property A is siezed
>under forfeiture laws, leaving the Smiths with an uncollectable 
>mortgage, and no income, and still owing on their note to the 
>original owner.

>Feh on the unjust takers of the right to life, liberty, and the
>pursuit of happiness.

Welcome to the war on Drugs, where the unbridled and unfettered power of
a giant centralized democracy works for _you_!  Everything's okay as long
as we can get a majority to vote for it!  Courts, Constitution and due
process are an utter drag, a majority of our voters want _quick_ action
in our Holy Jiha...I mean, war, yes, war...on Drugs, so we just deep-6 'em
right out of the way!  Instant gratification and remember: as long as
we're busy robbing the Smith's, we're not robbing you!

If this is the _first_ "excess" you've encountered thanks to the War on Drugs,
you haven't been paying attention.  God help you if carry more than twenty
or thirty bucks cash, you might fit a "drug dealer" profile.  If the dog
"reacts" to your money, kiss it all goodbye, Bunky.  And remember too: a dog
can pick up 9 parts of cocaine in a billion of air.  Your money can pick up
that much if it was ever placed in a drawer _next_ to a bill that was touched
by someone with cocaine on their hands.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: So what's a religion ?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:03:31 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

[...]
>I think the interpertation is slightly wider than that: I believe that
>Prohibition was not enforced against wine used in Catholic and Jewish
>religious practices.
[...]

True, but not because of protection from the courts, but rather
because the Catholics were a strong enough group to lobby for and get
exemptions.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:00:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.192815.27567@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>>This seems to demonstrate a comittment to the "establishment" clause
>>of the First Amendment at the expense of the "free exercise" clause
>>of that same Amendment.

>No. It does not affect the right of the individual to hold such religious
>beliefs as they wish. It does prohibit the state-run schools from 
>incorporating a specifically religious (and only one religion, at that)
>subject into the curriculum.

However, the "scientific" view is _also_ a religion: It is based on
unproven (and unproveable) articles of faith. That the universe
and everything in it obeys physical laws; that these laws are
logical and understandable; that these laws are the same everywhere
in the universe; etc... While I accept and believe in these principles
(which the Church used to refer to as the "cult of science"), I 
also don't put them ahead of other people's faith. 

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory