HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:14:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.143750.13483@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
> 
>    This might be a good place to mention the difference between interpreting
> the Consitution literally and interpreting it according to original intent.
> From a literal standpoint, the power of judicial review is not granted to
> the Supreme Court.  From the standpoint of original intent, however, there
> is good reason to believe that the court was meant to have final authority
> in pronouncing the meaning of a law:
> 
> [Hamilton quote deleted...]

Apparently not all Federalists agree:

    As the courts are generally the last in making the decision
    [on laws], it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to
    execute a law, to stamp it with its final character.  This makes
    the Judiciary dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which
    was never intended, and can never be proper.
         James Madison, 1788.

And you won't be surprised to discover that Jefferson disagrees:

    You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
    constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and
    one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy....
    The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.
         Thomas Jefferson, 1820.

> and the Supreme Court has final jurisdiction (juris dictio).  Hamilton
> does recognize the possibility of judges' imposing their own desires by
> declaring acts unconstitutional as they wish, but he says this merely
> proves, if anything, that there should be no judges distinct from the
> legislature.

Thomas Jefferson:  "...judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose
erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution.  It may, indeed, injure
them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic..."

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: Re: Not that kind! Re: 3 Branches of Government: Is it time for a change?
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 14:21:50 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Oct8.053915.6373@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
> Proposing the UK as a model for the US to follow is
>pretty scary given the decline of that once great nation.
>
Are you arguing that the UK declined because of their form
of government?
I would argue that the decline was caused by the policies
or lack thereof of the government.

Of course, the higher level decision as to whether the
country will be a democracy or communist is very important.

But the form of government within a democracy seems to me
to be less important.  And we should experiment with different
forms.   After all, the "founding fathers"  were not gods.
Jefferson said "all men are created equal", yet he owned slaves.
Even the "founding fathers" experimented.  They started with
a weak federal government and found that it did not work for them,
then they adopted the U.S. Constitution and took a lot of power from
the states.

-- 
Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [misc.legal] Carjacking as a federal offense
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:14:11 GMT

A repost from misc.legal:

From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:42:31 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


I see that the Congress has passed a law making carjacking a federal
crime.  The bill's been sent to the President, and he may already have
signed it by the time you read this.

I don't want to debate/discuss the political or social wisdom of this
act... I'm just wondering if anyone knows what excuse the Congress
used for having the federal government move into this area.  Did they
rule that since some of the atoms that comprise a hijacked automobile
have probably crossed state lines sometime in the past, the Interstate
Commerce Clause granted federal authority in this area, or what?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:29:51 GMT

In article <4bwo02H725tV01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> They invoked it, but Marbury was the first time they overturned a 
>> federal law and claimed the rest of government was bound by their
>> ruling (e.g. that they had the final say in the matter.)

>Nope.  See United States v. Yale Todd, 13 How. 52 (Feb. 17, 1794).  "[T]he 
>power to be proposed to be conferred on the Circuit Courts of the United 
>States by the [U.S. Congressional] act of 1972 [1 Stat. 243] was not judicial 
>power within the meaning of the Constitution, and was, therefore, 
>unconstitutional, and could not lawfully be exercised by the courts."

You are missing the main point of the debate: No one is arguing that
the Court lacks constitutional authority to interpert the Constitution,
or to use its interpertation as part of a ruling. Nor was 
Marbury the first case in which they did so. However, Marbury also
asserted that all other branches of government were bound by the
Court's ruling (e.g. the President is bound to enforce Court rulings, 
even if he disagrees with the Court's interpertation, Congress is
bound not to pass laws that violate the Court's terpertation, etc...)
That is, Marbury was the case where the Court claimed the _final_
word, in matters of interpertation. And, further, there is no 
constitutional justification for their having such a _final_ authority.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: 3 Branches of Government: Is it time for a change?
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 02:17:22 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

There is a lot of talk in the press and by politicans that one of
the major problems with our government today is that very little
gets done.  The  reason is that the Democratic Congress passes
bills that the President vetoes and usually the Congress fails to
override the veto due to the lack of support from the Republicans
in Congress.

It seems to me that one way to eliminate the "gridlock" in 
Washington is to adopt the "Parliamentary" form of government
that Britain uses.  In this way, the people vote for a party
and the party chooses the Prime Minister.

However, I am open to people either pro or con who wish to change 
my mind.

-- 
Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: A question about Dicey
Keywords: comments?
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:44:46 GMT



     Greetings, all.  My question does not specifically relate to the
US Constitution, but I post it here because the usual posters on this 
group seem to be more widely read than I am concerning jurisprudence.  
And so, any comments about Dicey's book which is an introduction 
to principles of constitutional interpretation?  Is it very good?
Worth reading?  (I am aware that it is about the British constitution and
that it appeared a century ago; I'm more interested in what he actually
tries to argue, because the arguments may have bearing on modern-day
questions.)  Liberty Fund has just republished it for a mere $7.00, and
it looks like a book worth having.

     Thanks.

     P.S.  Is there any Edward Coke to be found out there at a 
reasonable price?


John Rickert					It is a general popular
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		error to imagine the loudest
						complainers for the public
						to be the most anxious for
						its welfare.
								-- Burke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: British Legal System Features
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:50:16 GMT

From "The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy" by David Kopel:

The Security Service Act of 1989 provides:

	"No entry on or interference with property shall be unlawful if
	it is authorized by a warrant issued by the secretary of state".

Upon an order from the secretary of state, theft, damage to property,
arson, procuring information for blackmail, and leaving planted
evidence are not crimes.
(p. 100)

Indeed, it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a
police wiretap was illegal.
(p. 102)


-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jsy@media04.cray.com (Jeff Young)
Subject: Proposed: A netnews constitutional convention
Originator: jsy@media04
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:24:24 CDT



I would like to set up a group (probably not more than 15 or 20 people) to 
start hammering out a new US constitution.  This is obviously just an exercise
to determine what we think is important today vs. 200+ years ago.  (Some examples
of things which are not important are the 3rd admendment and the 10th admendment.)

How about it?  Is anyone interested in this game?  Maybe we would run it like
the original convention - voting, etc on issues after some debate.

Thanks,
Jeff Young
jsy@cray.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:25:09 GMT

titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>In article <Bvt1s6.n6@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>|> As an example, 35 states reacted to the effective abolition of
>|> the death penalty (via Furman v. Georgia) with new laws that were
>|> later viewed (in dicta in Gregg v. Georgia) as successful and proper

>Or more likely is that there never was any flaw in their laws.  The states 
>repassed the death penalty and a different Supreme Court accepted them.
>How did the membership change between Furman and Gregg?

Furman was 1972, Gregg was 1976.  The vote in Gregg was 7-2, so I don't
think it was membership changes that yielded the difference. 

-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The Courts and "De Facto Law" (was Re: Separation of Church & State)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:55:51 GMT

In article <BvpuLu.731@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> capn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Steve Thurston) writes:
>I know that I couldn't have.  BUT....  This doesn't really solve the problem.
>What if a legislature DOES pass an unconstitutional law?  It seems likely
>that it will be enforced up until the time it is declared unconstitutional.
>So, it would still seem that, until actually nullified, an unconstitutional
>law is still a law.  The only question is what can be done about it.  I assume
>all those decisions you quoted were leading to something... perhaps an answer
>to that question?  (By "done about it" I mean, does the "victim" of the law
>have rights to compensation?)

They lead up to the Supreme Court, eventually, overturning 
unconstitutional laws. Until then, they don't offer much of a solution
(compensation, by the way, depends on the nature of the compensation
asked, and the details of the unconstitutional act.) Before the
Court rules, however, there is one potential remedy: Jury nullification.
A jury can find the defendant innocent for _any_ reason, including 
thinking the law is improper.

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:20:41 GMT
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Oct15.011422.6868@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>In article <1992Oct10.143750.13483@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
>rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>> 
>>    This might be a good place to mention the difference between interpreting
>> the Consitution literally and interpreting it according to original intent.
>> From a literal standpoint, the power of judicial review is not granted to
>> the Supreme Court.  From the standpoint of original intent, however, there
>> is good reason to believe that the court was meant to have final authority
>> in pronouncing the meaning of a law:
>> 
>> [Hamilton quote deleted...]

>Apparently not all Federalists agree:

>    As the courts are generally the last in making the decision
>    [on laws], it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to
>    execute a law, to stamp it with its final character.  This makes
>    the Judiciary dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which
>    was never intended, and can never be proper.
>         James Madison, 1788.

>And you won't be surprised to discover that Jefferson disagrees:

>    You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
>    constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and
>    one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy....
>    The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.
>         Thomas Jefferson, 1820.

>> and the Supreme Court has final jurisdiction (juris dictio).  Hamilton
>> does recognize the possibility of judges' imposing their own desires by
>> declaring acts unconstitutional as they wish, but he says this merely
>> proves, if anything, that there should be no judges distinct from the
>> legislature.

>Thomas Jefferson:  "...judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose
>erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution.  It may, indeed, injure
>them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic..."

Sorry to copy the whole thing, but isn't Jefferson's quote exactly
how the Framers thought it should work? Remember that a SC Justice
is appointed for life 'upon good behaviour'. Which should mean
that if Congress feels that a (or several) Justice(s) has deliberately
or stupidly misinterpreted the Constitution he/she can be removed.
Actually, I imagine stupidity would not be a valid reason, since it
is not a crime (thank heavens), but deliberate or malicious mis-
interpretation should be valid cause.


>-- 
>Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
>Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser

Bob
From: dmathies@cs.weber.edu (Dawn Mathiesen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Return to the Constitution
Keywords: New World Order, Gritz
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:11:29 GMT
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center

As I'm sure many of you know, our Consitution is the article that guarantees our freedoms.  I don't know how many of you may know that in November 1991, George Bush signed us out from the protection of the Constitution, and put us under the Constitution of Interdependance, which is what he meant when he said "This is to issue us into the New World Order" (reference State of the Union Address at the time of the Desert Storm War).
The New World Order is under the leadership of the World Bank. Did you know that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation?  It is _not_ a government agency.  As election time grows near, please be aware that there is a candidate, Bo Gritz who supports the Constitution of the United States.  I encourage you to find out more about him.  I will post his 1-800-number tomorrow.

BTW- George Bush is pro-New World Order, as is  Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.

Dawn Mathiesen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution

              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Subject: Furman and Gregg
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:28:09 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <Bvuvy3.MCw@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>>In article <Bvt1s6.n6@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>>|> As an example, 35 states reacted to the effective abolition of
>>|> the death penalty (via Furman v. Georgia) with new laws that were
>>|> later viewed (in dicta in Gregg v. Georgia) as successful and proper
>
>>Or more likely is that there never was any flaw in their laws.  The states 
>>repassed the death penalty and a different Supreme Court accepted them.
>>How did the membership change between Furman and Gregg?
>
>Furman was 1972, Gregg was 1976.  The vote in Gregg was 7-2, so I don't
>think it was membership changes that yielded the difference. 

The only change on the court was that Ford appointee Stevens replaced
FDR appointee Douglas.  The Georgia laws were significantly changed
in the wake of Furman.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Where Did "...beyond a reasonable doubt" Come From?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:12:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.231550.24371@netcom.com>
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:

>I can't find the phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond
>a reasonable doubt" in my copy of the U.S. Constitution. Where did  it
>come from?

     Probably English Common Law, which most of our legal system is based
on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: [alt.society.civil-liberty] Re: Civil Rights Are Absolute
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.041941.19200@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.160255.16902@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>Actually, an individual has no rights except those granted by
>>the state.  An individual cannot even sue the state unless the
>>state gives him that right.  Causes of action are granted through
>>the state.  You say you have common law rights?  You do only 
>>because all states except Louisiana have adopted the common
>>law as part of their system of laws.

I wrote no such thing.  I was reposting an article written by someone else.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:704 alt.politics.usa.misc:228
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:11:40 GMT
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Oct14.171552.17910@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>A repost from misc.legal:

>From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
>Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
>Message-ID: <a0p402vw25py01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
>Date: 12 Oct 92 21:30:28 GMT
>Organization: Amdahl Corporation

>In article <1992Oct12.154231.8705@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
>(William December Starr) writes:
>> I'm just wondering if anyone knows what excuse the Congress
>> used for having the federal government move into this area.  Did they
>> rule that since some of the atoms that comprise a hijacked automobile
>> have probably crossed state lines sometime in the past, the Interstate
>> Commerce Clause granted federal authority in this area, or what?

>I was wondering the same thing.  Here's the proposed addition to Title 18:

>"2119.  Carjacking
>  "(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes or
>attempts to take a motor vehicle, that has been transported, shipped, or
>received in interstate or foreign commerce, from the person or presence
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe this is the kicker - I imagine many of the cars stolen in this
manner end up in another state, or even a foreign country. We can't
enforce U.S. law in another country, but we can get everyone that
is involved here - assuming they get caught. Also, I gather some
states were a little slow in altering their laws re carjacking. It
is a particularly viscious form of car theft, we have had at least
5 murders here in the D.C area from this.

>of another,  shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than
>15 years, or both."

>Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
>The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.

Bob.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: walter@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (w mccutchan -- computing services)
Subject: FTPable copy of the constitution of the United States?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: ont
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:23:23 GMT



I would like to get an electronic copy of the Constitution of the US.
Can someone direct me to an FTP site?

please reply by mail (unless you think this would be of wider interest
than I think it will be....)
 
..cheers
..walter
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal