X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:42:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

>> > 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
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU