HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Civics Classes for Law Enforcement Offici
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:03:55 GMT

In article 13421@mtu.edu, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>	Article VI, paragraph 2:
>
>	This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
>	be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which
>	shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall
>	be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state
>	shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws
>	of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
>[i.e. the US Constitution supercedes any State Constitution, or Law]

Doesn't that last bit conflict with the Tenth Amendment?

   10th Amendment
   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
   nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
   respectively, or to the people.

Maybe not...I guess what Article VI is saying is "if it's in the US
Constitution, it's the law", and what Amendment X is saying is "if it's
not in the US Constitution, it's up to the States".  Two different things.

Never mind.

---
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4
          To sight it must ring clear as a bell, it must snap
          in the ear, feel pleasantly sticky between the fingers,
          smell fresh and tempting and taste heavenly.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:37:04 GMT

rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:

[...]
>Thus, I have seen statements from Glasser, Madison, and Jefferson
>which tend toward more strict separation on any level government, but
>I am personally more intersted in what the legislators who enacted it
>thought.
[...]

Madison the federal legislator (i.e. U.S. Representative) who
introduced the proposal to amendment the Constitution.

[...]
>    In regard to the 14th Amendment, the language is so broad that the
>original intent may be beyond clear determination from pertinent texts,
>such as debates and proceedings.  If that is so, it seems to me the next
>best thing to do in determining what they meant by it is to see what they
>did, what kinds of laws they proposed, speeches they made, and so on.
[...]

[...]
>So, I'm personally leary about using the 14th Amendment in church-state
>issues. 
[...]

Are you also leery about using it in free expression and the other
rights protected (at least from the Feds) by the Bill of Rights?


Glasser says: "[S]ome historians and some Supreme Court justices
believe that the Fourteenth Amendment was explictily intended by its
authors to overrule _Barron v. Baltimore_ [a case in which a city
seized a person's property without 'just compensation' -cmk] . Other
historians disagree, and think the historical record is 'probably
inconclusive.'
   _Visions of Liberty_, 56 which in turn references:

p. 971 of
     Encyclopedia of the American Constitution / Leonard W. Levy,
editor-in-chief ; Kenneth L. Karst, associate editor ; Dennis J.
Mahoney, assistant editor. New York : Free Press ; London : Collier
Macmillan, c1986.
       v. ; 29 cm.
     Includes index.
     ISBN  0029186102
       1. United States--Constitutional law--Dictionaries.  I. Levy,
Leonard Williams, 1923-  II. Mahoney, Dennis J.  III. Karst, Kenneth L.
     ocm13-328078

And

     Curtis, Michael Kent, 1942-
     No state shall abridge : the Fourteenth amendment and the Bill of
Rights / Michael Kent Curtis. Durham, N.C. : Duke University Press,
1986.
     xii, 275 p. ; 24 cm.
     Includes index.
     Bibliography: p. :221:-266.
     ISBN  0822305992 (alk. paper)
       1. Slavery--Law and legislation--United States--History.   2.
Afro-Americans--Civil rights--History.   3. United States--
Constitutional law--Amendments--14th--History.  I. Title.
     ocm13-360945
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism et al] Feedback to the Bill of Rights status report
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:12:34 GMT

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
: 
: 	One problem which had been an obstacle for both the anti WoD and the
: anti WoG groups has been the adament position taken by the majority of the
: pro-gun groups that the WoD is fair, that those who have nothing to hide
: should not care about being searched, etc. This was typical of the messages
: I received, many of which argued that it was "disgusting the way left-wingers
: stood up for they drug-dealers and other scum while opposing decent
: Americans." Others simply took the position that people who oppose the WoD
: HAVE no rights. Only ONE person who responded (out of more than 12) felt
: that any right other than the right to bear arms was under attack!

Yep. The sad thing is, these people do not realize the hypocrisy of their
position.  E.g. - what I want should be legal - what you want is different
and shouldn't be. 

All rights are under attack - and have been for a long time. This can be
verified by many of the laws that exist - such as anti-pornography, 
anti-gun, anti-drug, anti-prostitution, anti-sex-in-other-than-missionary-
position, anti-abortion etc.

... deleted ...

: 	What is needed is a coalition position which supports the
: restoration of ALL rights. A united front by the right wing gun advocates
: and the left wing (and right, since many are there as well) anti WoD
: advocates might actually do SOMETHING to restore a bit of personal freedom
: in this country. 
: 
: 	So long as each of us supports a "single-issue advocacy" we will
: never have the numbers to force ANY change, and the government will simply
: go along taking rights from everyone until those of us who cannot live under
: fascism are forced to leave this country (something many of us are very
: close to doing) to seek freedom elsewhere - the opposite of the original
: migratory path that formed this nation.

Yep. However, I have little faith that the general population will ever do
more than continue to expect the government to do all their thinking for them
and to protect them from their favorite bug-a-bears.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:42:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.220244.25210@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:

>Actually, I don't see the necessity of this any more than I believe that a
>change to the First Amendment should have been required before passing libel
>laws. There are some restrictions (like the libel laws) to our First
>Amendment freedom that are almost universally accepted. I believe we should
>apply the same thinking to the Second Amendment.

We do.

> Certain people, for
>instance convicted felons and perhaps anyone who has been acquitted of a
>crime for reason of insanity, should probably not be allowed to own guns.

Such people (in addition to anyone under the age of 21) have not
been allowed to own handguns since the Gun Control Act of 1968. Rifles
and shotguns fall under similar restrictions, but the age limit in 18.

>A system of licensing and checking to enforce this seems within the intent of
>the Second Amendment and common sense.

Currently, every firearms sale through a dealer (anyone selling 5 or
more guns per year) requires making a record of sale (kept by the
dealer, but available to the police whenever they need) supported
by photo identification (like a driver's license) to verify the
details of the record of sale.

A waiting period, however, would be a violation of the Second Amedment:
As the pro-choice people were quoting after the last Supreme Court
ruling, "A right delayed is a right denied" (M.L.King)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:05:56 GMT

rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:

>[...] I don't see _Constitutionally_
>speaking, from the text and intent of the legislators involved, how the
>14th Amendment has anything to do with religion.  It would seem curious
>to me, for example, how school prayer could persist for 80 years after
>the amendment if it did.
[...]

Freedom of expression wasn't even protected from the states by the
14th Amendment until 1925 in _Gitlow_ ... and Gitlow still went to
jail. Here is some more of the history:

"[S]ome historians and some Supreme Court justices believe that the
Fourteenth Amendment was explictily intended by its authors to
overrule _Barron v. Baltimore_ [a case in which a city seized a
person's property without 'just compensation' -cmk] . Other historians
disagree, and think the historical record is 'probably inconclusive.'
But ultimately any constitutional provision means what the Supreme
Court says it means, and for a long time the Courts ruled that the
Fourteenth Amendment did _not_ apply the Bill of Rights to the states.
  [...] In 1869, the state of Louisiana, through its licensing power,
had granted a monopoly on butchering to a single company [...].
Butchers who were excluded claimed discrimination and a deprivation of
the livelihood, and argued that Louisiana's actions violated the
second clause of the new Fourrteenth Amendment, who prohibited states
from abridging the [...] 'privileges and immunities' of United States
citizens.
  [...] The Court ruled [in 1873] that the only rights protected by
the 'privleges and immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were
rights of _national citizenship, such as the right to travel or the
right to go to Washington and petition the _national_ govenment."
   [_Visions of Liberty_ by Ira Glasser, p. 56]

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:29:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.145114.14433@sdc.com>, kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:

> Uh, not quite.  You'd be a little more accurate if you said "a Constitutional
> Amendment is required for federal gun control legislation to be
> legitimate".

Constitutional, you mean.

> The Constitution and its amendments only apply to the
> federal government.  At least, they were only intended to.

I can't believe that no-one pointed this out, but that statement
is absolutely FALSE!

	                    Amendment X [1791]

	     The powers not delegated to the United States by the
	Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
	States respectively, or to the people.

If it applies only to the Feds, then why are prohibitions to the States
mentioned?
	                    Article VI

	     [2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
	shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
	shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
	supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Contrary notwithstanding.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If it applies only to the Feds, how can it be the "Law of the Land"?
How can "Judges in every State" be bound to uphold it?  How can it
supercede the "Constitution or Laws of any State"?

> In addition, Congress can (and has), through its powers to regulate commerce
> and raise taxes, pass legislation that for all practical purposes, is gun
> control legislation.

They do not have this power.  Any such law is unConstitutional under the
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

> What makes them constitutional is that nobody's
> rights are being infringed.  Making it hard to buy something is quite a
> bit different (at least from a legal point of view) than prohibiting buying it.

What makes then UNConstitutional is that this is not one of the
Federal govt's ENUMERATED POWERS (they have *no* other kind...).

What makes it UNConstitutional for States to pass the laws you've
suggested is that they violate the Citizen's RIGHTS (in fact an
ENUMERATED RIGHT!).

-- 
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: symanzik@pigeon.egr.msu.edu (Edward Symanzik)
Subject: Re: 27th Amendment
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 16:47:00 GMT

In article <BuE633.Iz6@ddsw1.mcs.com>, zane@ddsw1.mcs.com (Sameer Parekh) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep8.213746.12966@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
|> >
|> >    By the way, what were the other amendments Madison drafted as
|> >part of the Bill of Rights which were not adopted?
|> >
|> 
|> 	He proposed 12, 10 were adopted in 1791, 1 was adopted in 1992, and
|> I don't know what the last one was about. (The ones which weren't adopted in
|> 1791 were listed as the 1st and 2nd amendments.

George Washington, in his inaugural address, urged Congress to move quickly
to form some type of declaration of the rights of states and individuals to
be added to the Constitution.  James Madison, at that time a member of the 
U.S. House of Representatives, submitted nine articles to the Congress that
expressed protection for fundamental rights.  Madison's articles were passed
on to the Commitee of Eleven, a select committee in the House that included
one member from each of the eleven states.  The committee reviewed his nine
articles and referred them to the House for full consideration.  In the House,
additions were made that resulted in seventeen total articles.  Those seventeen 
were passed to the Senate which, after consideration, reduced the number to twelve.

    David Barton, "The Myth of Separation," WallBuilder Press, 1992, p. 26.

--
Ed Symanzik
Michigan State University
symanzik@egr.msu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:22:07 GMT

RE: Was the 14th Amendment originally intended to cover freedom of speech?

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

[...]
>I don't have a reference handy, but I believe that freedom of speech,
>assembly and firearms ownership were specifically mentioned (as well
>as others.)
[...]

I'm enclosing a repost that gives the history of the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the 14th.

- Carl

=====================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:05:56 GMT

rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:

>[...] I don't see _Constitutionally_
>speaking, from the text and intent of the legislators involved, how the
>14th Amendment has anything to do with religion.  It would seem curious
>to me, for example, how school prayer could persist for 80 years after
>the amendment if it did.
[...]

Freedom of expression wasn't even protected from the states by the
14th Amendment until 1925 in _Gitlow_ ... and Gitlow still went to
jail. Here is some more of the history:

"[S]ome historians and some Supreme Court justices believe that the
Fourteenth Amendment was explictily intended by its authors to
overrule _Barron v. Baltimore_ [a case in which a city seized a
person's property without 'just compensation' -cmk] . Other historians
disagree, and think the historical record is 'probably inconclusive.'
But ultimately any constitutional provision means what the Supreme
Court says it means, and for a long time the Courts ruled that the
Fourteenth Amendment did _not_ apply the Bill of Rights to the states.
  [...] In 1869, the state of Louisiana, through its licensing power,
had granted a monopoly on butchering to a single company [...].
Butchers who were excluded claimed discrimination and a deprivation of
the livelihood, and argued that Louisiana's actions violated the
second clause of the new Fourrteenth Amendment, who prohibited states
from abridging the [...] 'privileges and immunities' of United States
citizens.
  [...] The Court ruled [in 1873] that the only rights protected by
the 'privileges and immunities' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were
rights of _national citizenship, such as the right to travel or the
right to go to Washington and petition the _national_ govenment."
   [_Visions of Liberty_ by Ira Glasser, p. 56]
=================
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:15:36 GMT

RE: "A wall of separtation between church and state"

rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:

[...]
>I believe this phrase reared it's ugly head in the court decision that
>outlawed prayer in public schools.  I also believe this "doctrine" is
>less than 50 years old and is a 180 degree about face from previous
>decisions.  It's been a *long* while since I researched the cases.

1) No court decision has outlawed prayer in public schools. Court
decisions have outlawed *state-sponsored* prayer in public schools.

2) === excerpt from a posting by John A. Johnson, J5J@psuvm.psu.edu ====

It was Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to a group of Baptists in
Danbury, Conn., who said that the purpose of the First Amendment was
to build "a wall of separation between Church and State."  In 1879
Chief Justice Waite, speaking for a unanimous court in a case
involving the Mormon Church, stated that Jefferson's statement was
"almost an authoratative declaration of the scope and effect of the
amendment."
===================================

Also:

The author of the First Amendment, Madison, believed in what he called
"'perfect separation' between religion and government. He said
repeatedly that religion would flourish more freely without the aid of
government because the power of government to aid religion necessarily
implied the power of government to suppress religion. ... In his own
state of Virginia, Madison opposed a 1984 tax bill that would have
subsidized religion _without preference_. ... The proposal for a
general, nonpreferential tax for supporting religion failed, and two
years later, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom completely
separated church and state.
  [_Visions of Freedom_ by Ira Glasser, p. 75.]

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Is Civil Seizure/Forfeiture Constitutional?
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:45:14 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

The historical record of debate over the ratification makes clear that
the top two issues concerning the federal governement were "no
standing armies" and "trial by jury for both civil and criminal
cases".
"Trial by jury for civil cases didn't make it into the Constitution
and now we see that they were only too right to be concerned about
this omission.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
RE Drug Warriors who enjoy making a "good" bust: I'm sure the Salem
Witch Hunters enjoyed their law enforcement achievements too.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: 27th Amendment
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:50:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.022736.23946@convex.com>, tighe@convex.COM (Mike Tighe) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.213746.12966@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vande
> rbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:

> >    So, whatever became of the proposed 27th Amendment? ...

> It is in limbo. While it has been ratified by 39 states, it is not yet
> part of the constitution. It still needs to be certified by the Chief
> of National Archives, Don. W. Wilson. As far as I know, He has not
> done this.

I don't believe this is accurate.  I read some time ago in the newspaper
that the Archivist has added it to the other 26 without any fuss and without
choosing to contest it in any way.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: 27th Amendment
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:52:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

Re: Madison originally proposed "No state shall violate the equal
   rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trail by
   jury in criminal cases."

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

>The wording was changed to "Congress shall..." in the House, at the
>proposal of Mr. Livermore.

According to Ira Glasser: "A motion soon was made by the
representative from South Carolina to delete the limit on state
powers. Madison now rose to say that he thought that this amendment
was "the most valuable amendment on the list." His argument carried
the House by the required two-thirds majority."
 [_Visions of Liberty_, p 44]

Glasser references Volume 2, pp. 1023-34, 1042, 1113 of this book:

     Roots of the Bill of Rights / :compiled by: Bernard Schwartz. New
     York : Chelsea House : distributed by Scribner, c1980.
     5 v. (xxviii, 1234 p., :70: leaves of plates : ill. ; 24 cm.
     Edition for 1971, compiled by B. Schwartz, published under title:
     The Bill of Rights.
     Includes bibliographical references and index.
     ISBN  0877542074 (pbk.) : $$64.95 (set)
       1. United States--Constitutional law--Amendments--1st-10th--
       Sources.  I. Schwartz, Bernard, 1923-  II. Schwartz, Bernard, 1923- Bill
       of Rights

I've ordered it from the library. I'll check the reference when I get
it.

- Carl




--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution