Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:01:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:31:00 EDT JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET said:
> In article <tfilt199626@drew.edu>, Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:47:00 EDT JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET said:
> >> > And also, remember that Supreme Court decisions are based also on the
> >> > ability of the attorneys arguing the case.  If an attorney forgets
> >> > about Clause X of Article Y of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
> >> > MAY not consider it in their decision.
>
> below you say the Sc can consider something the attorney forgets; what
> one do you want to support?
The "MAY" above was meant to mean "maybe will", not "can."

> > What is the "exclusionary rule"?
>
> any evidence (exceptions coming too fast imho these days) not found
> with a warrant should not be used as evidence to prove the case.  The
> federal gov't had to do this since 1914, the states the 1960s.
OK thanks.  I agree with that, mostly.  But I think a constitutional
amendment is in order that would make an exception for the trans-
portation of illegal drugs.  If drugs are found in your car, that should
be sufficient to denote probable cause that drugs are in your car (makes
sense, doesn't it?). That would put a major dent in drug trafficking,
IMHO.

> > If Roe v. Wade is overturned, which is the reason for the Freedom of
> > Choice Act, abortion will no longer be classified under the right to
> > privacy, therefore the act will have no Constitutional basis,
>
> Homosexuality was not found to be a right by the SC too, so I guess
> the Congress can't protect this either.
No, it can't.

> first of all, as noted abortion need not just be protected under the
> right of privacy.  Second, a repeal of the Roe decision just means the
> court feels abortion isn't so fundamental that it should be a right;
> but Congress need not agree, and there are many reasons for them to
> protect the right.  The right of allowing 21 year olds the right to
> drink isn't fundamental or protected, but that doesn't mean Congress
> needs or states need to pass laws that ups the age to 30.
OK--say Congress decided burning the flag wasn't a right--could they
pass a law against it, given the current SC ruling?

>
>  and there-
> > fore will be unconstitutional under the very conditions for which it was
> > passed.  Assuming Roe remains law, the act would be constitutuinal but
> > unnecessary, for the SC would be protecting the right to abortion well
> > enough as it is.
>
> the SC's Webster decision decreased the protection of the right of
> abortion by saying public hospitals, even if the staff wants to, can't
> perform abortions.  So, 79% of the area of the country doesn't have a
> place to have an abortion.  The upcoming case of Casey (which Bush
So what you are saying is, Roe is already partially overturned.

> probably degrade the right further.  Why? Largely because the Court
> wants the legislature (rehquist and Scalia and I guess White
> especially) to decide.  Well the Congress is a legislature and has a
> constitutional right to decide on the 14th amendment via legislation.
DOES NOT!!!



> > try.  But in no way does the 14th Amendment say that Congress can repeal
> > any state legislation it wants by passing opposite legislation.  The
> > 10th amendment has not yet been repealed.
> > -Travis
>
> it's all a matter of degree; and your degree seems much to high for
> me, and many others.
Well, I hope it's not too high for the Supreme Court.

>                 -JOE
-Travis