HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Cousin It)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Civil Warriors
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:45:55 GMT

foxx@foxxjac.b17a.ingr.com (TheFoxx "AJ") writes:
|borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

||> Why haven't we invaded China to end the repression there?  Because
||> it's not feasible.  We don't have the power to overthrow the Chinese
||> government, and if we tried, the damage would be unspeakable, far
||> worse than than the suffering that exists there now.  The suffering
||> during the Civil War was great, but it was both necessary and
||> feasible to end the evil of slavery. 

	I agree with you with regards to the Chinese situation.
However, I think the US went to war for many reasons, not just 
Slavery.

|NOT!  Slavery was a dying institution as plantation based agriculture
|became more and more economically unfeasible.  That war was not
|necessary, and the number of lives lost was certainly not feasible (I
|think the term you were trying for was "acceptable casualties").  It
|was something akin to trying to swat a fly with a cannon.  Sure you
|can end slavery, but you also manage to deplete the country of the
|majority of a generation.  Followed up with a "reconstruction" that
|destroyed the industrial base of half the country, The War was an
|extreme measure that could have been avoided.  IMO, the whole period 
|was a prime example of what happens when politics supercede
|principles.   

	Slavery was NOT a dying institution even if one believes that
plantation based agriculture was becoming economically unfeasible. (A
point which I personally disagree with). Slaves can, and were, used
for many purposes. They would have continued to be used for many
purposes. Was The US Civil War tragic. Of Course. Was it necessary? It
depends on ones views. If the War never happened, there would be no
United States of America as we know it, and the possibility of a whole
different political order in the whole of the Americas is great.
Again,  whether or not this is a desirable result is up to ones own
opinions. But, the Civil War was ultimately for the survival of the
Union, not the war to end slavery.

	Oh, and I believe that the whole period from 1850 onwards is a
prime example of what happens when principles supercede politics.

Cousin It                                         cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
           Special Productions Director and Engineer
WBRS 100 FM, Waltham Ma.                   WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
All Genre Music Programming            Free Live Music-4 times weekly

 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Privileges and Immunities
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:41:36 GMT

In article <1e6v6kINN7he@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>>In a previous article, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) says:
>>>What is your interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause in
>>>Article IV, section 2?
>>
>In Robert Bork's excellent book *The Political Seduction of the Law*,
>he says that nobody knows what the "privileges and immunities clause"
>is supposed to mean.

It's a good thing Bork was never confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

Since I indeed do know what the clause means, Bork is wrong.

To quote:

	The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and
	immunities of citizens in the several states.

What it means is that no state can treat a citizen from another state
differently from any other citizen from any other state, and arguably can't
treat a citizen of another state differently from a citizen of that state.
It also means that the federal government cannot make laws that pertain only
to citizens of (a) particular state(s), federal laws must apply to all US
citizens equally, regardless of which state that person is a citizen of.

The only portion of my statement above that is arguable, as noted, is whether
a state can treat citizens from other states differently from citizens of the
state in question.

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

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found
on the bench.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: EC Protects Minority Rights
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:07:49 GMT

I would like to address the general argument made by many here that the
Electoral College (EC) is not "fair".  The EC is in actuality inherently
fair because it encourages the creation of concurrent majorities which 
form from minority factions.  This results in a two party system where 
we have majority rule with _consent_ of the minority.

The founders recognized that a system wherein a majority faction controlled
the political system, and never allowing the minority to have a hand in
governing, would ultimately fail.  The system they designed included the
EC for this very important reason - to encourage minority factions to 
coalesce into a majority and to take power through legitimate elections.

Nothing would please, for example, white separatists more than for the
electoral system to divide the non-whites into monolithic areas.  For sake
of argument let's presume that it is possible to put all minorities into
a few states and whites into all the rest.  The result is that the minorities
may have 50 or so Congressmen but they are still an ineffective minority and
they will always be.

This hypothetical example contrasts with the current system in that the
minority populations in states can often be the swing votes that decide
elections.  They have real influence and can, at times, become part of
a majority coalition that assumes control of the government.  

Without this system the minorities could simply be ignored and their 
issues left untouched.  The EC protects their rights ultimately.

Majority rule with consent of the minority is a subtle but powerful concept.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:58:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.054223.23623@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>However, this doesn't apply to the "articles of faith" I mentioned
>above: That everything in the universe follows physical laws. This 
>can not be demonstrated false, since any conflict between observed
>behavior and known laws can simply be ascribed to yet-unknown laws.
>That these laws are logical and understandable, is not falsifiable
>by the same reasoning. That these laws are the same throughout the
>universe, is (at the moment) not falsifiable due to a lack of
>evidence (we can't go there, and all we know about the rest of
>the universe is based on the application of this assumption. Therefore,
>no data is available with which to test to assumption.) While
>you might argue that these are not "truly scientific propositions"
>(and might be correct in saying so), that doesn't alter their
>fundamental connection to science.

   Well said!


>Since the issue was science education in the public schools, I'd 
>disagree on this. Science, as it appears in public schools, very
>rarely adopts this character. Instead, students are presented
>and expected to accept (with or without proof) "the laws
>of science", which are essentially dictates from on high.
>
>                                          Frank Crary
>                                          CU Boulder


   I seem to remember hearing on more than one occasion, "Gee, this
lab didn't seem to work out."  The implication there was that the
law had been established so completely than any divergence had to
be due to experimental error.  I just thought this was amusing.

   As a side comment, it bears mentioning that physics, at least,
has become increasingly "abstract" since 1900.  That is to say, it
has turned much more "postulational" in flavor.  Thus, one posits
field equations or hermitian operators or what have you and uses
mathematics to go from there.  In certain cases, such as the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the mathematics is
declared to be complete: if it happens in the real world, it happens
in the mathematics.  The point of this, lest I have become obscure,
is that modern physics finds it fruitful to be postulational, and
in a real sense, dogmatic.  This is not to question its validity,
it is just to call attention to this disposition.


John Rickert					I swore off reality
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		years ago, and I haven't
						touched it since.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:22:56 GMT

In article <1e60aoINNscd@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>>Isn't that about the lowest popular vote percentage ever?
>>Hardly a mandate!

>Not quite. One of the presidents of the 19th century was elected with
>less than 40 pct of the popular vote in a four-way race. Most people
>feel he did a good job anyway--even I agree, and the president in
>question was a Republican.
>His name was Abraham Lincoln.
>Next question?

Why do you consider that a good thing? Lincon, without the support of
a mojority of the people, acted like a strong President and pressed
for the elimination of slavery. In doing so, he provoked a civil war.
I'd think the lesson learned from this, is that it is _extremely_
dangerous for a President to _act_ like he has a popular mandate
when in fact he does not.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:31:04 GMT


This mandate stuff is a crock of shit
That fact of the matter is, and the point you anal-retentive,
Jesse Helms loving, shoot ourselves in the foot, right wing 
republicans seem to be missing is:
		CLINTON WON
It desn't matter anymore what your personal views on the subject are.
And, like any GOOD president, he's going to do what he feels is 
necessary to fix this country that has been so badly screwed 
by EVERYONE in the past 20 years. It wasn't just Dems, it wasn't
just GOP. It was EVERYONE. 
If the Congress, which, by your definitions has a mandate, doesn't
agree with him (and don't tell me about a dem congress just rubber
stamping the pres and vice versa. Congressional leaders do NOT
agree with Billy on many issues), they won't pass his stuff. 
The popint of whether you think he has a mandate is moot. It don't
mean jack.
Get used to the idea.
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: foxx@foxxjac.b17a.ingr.com (TheFoxx "AJ")
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Reply-To: foxx@foxxjac.b17a.ingr.com
Organization: "Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville AL"
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:28:59 GMT

borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
|> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> > 
|> >>Do you think "the
|> >>majority" should have kept slavery legal?
|> >
|> >"Should" have? No, I'm in no way a supported of that institution. However,
|> >that isn't the question: Should my moral views (or anyone else's for that
|> >matter) be imposed by force on a population who (by and large) disagrees?
|> >If your answer is yes, please explain why we haven't invaded China
|> >yet, to impose _our_ moral views of their repression and murder of June 
|> >two years ago?
|> 
|> [...]
|> 
|> Why haven't we invaded China to end the repression there?  Because
|> it's not feasible.  We don't have the power to overthrow the Chinese
|> government, and if we tried, the damage would be unspeakable, far
|> worse than than the suffering that exists there now.  The suffering
|> during the Civil War was great, but it was both necessary and
|> feasible to end the evil of slavery. 

NOT!  Slavery was a dying institution as plantation based agriculture
became more and more economically unfeasible.  That war was not
necessary, and the number of lives lost was certainly not feasible (I
think the term you were trying for was "acceptable casualties").  It
was something akin to trying to swat a fly with a cannon.  Sure you
can end slavery, but you also manage to deplete the country of the
majority of a generation.  Followed up with a "reconstruction" that
destroyed the industrial base of half the country, The War was an
extreme measure that could have been avoided.  IMO, the whole period 
was a prime example of what happens when politics supercede
principles.   
  --AJ
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:57:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.200329.28126@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>History is also replete with republics that were destroyed by strong
>>leaders (or, more often, by several. Each subsequent one assuming 
>>slightly more power to "deal with the current crisis."

>I agree, it is a fine line to walk but applying this in relation to the
>power of Congress I would say that we need a strong executive even if
>he is Clinton :)

Currently, however, Clinton is no such check on Congress: He is part
of the same political party that controls Congress. A strong executive
is only a check if he is opposed to congressional power. Currently,
the only real check on the Democratic Party is the Supreme Court, and
the limited ability of the Republicans to fillibuster in the Senate.
A strong executive isn't a necessarliy a check on Congress (FDR is
an prefect example...)

>>Do you have some evidence to this effect? The debates during the 
>>convention and ratification seemed to focus on the President (whom
>>the anti-Federalists labled "Our New King" and the federal government
>>in general. I don't recall any specific objections to legislatures.)

>Sure, read Federalist 48.  I believe that Madison discusses the tendency
>of representative legislatures to ultimately believe that they _are_
>the people and deserve to have all the power.  

The dangers of the executive were also discussed by "Publius", however.
The idea was to balance their powers, not to make one uniformly
strong. Clinton can claim a "mandate" from a 43% plurality, that would
make the President uniformly strong.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 16 Nov 1992 01:18:55 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov15.182256.28168@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1e60aoINNscd@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

#Not quite. One of the presidents of the 19th century was elected with
#less than 40 pct of the popular vote in a four-way race. Most people
#feel he did a good job anyway--even I agree, and the president in
#question was a Republican.
#His name was Abraham Lincoln.
>Why do you consider that a good thing? Lincon, without the support of
>a mojority of the people, acted like a strong President and pressed
>for the elimination of slavery. In doing so, he provoked a civil war.
>I'd think the lesson learned from this, is that it is _extremely_
>dangerous for a President to _act_ like he has a popular mandate
>when in fact he does not.

It is hard to know where to begin in challenging your reasoning.

1. Lincoln did NOT press for the elimination of slavery during his
campaign or even the beginning of his terms of office. He pressed for
the *containment* of slavery.

2. If we look at the dates of secession,
the Civil War began already on the election of Lincoln even BEFORE he
assumed office and, a fortiori, before the worked to eliminate slavery.

3. Certainly Lincon's acts were dangerous. That does not make them
mistaken. Indeed, virtually all acts of the time were dangerous in some
sense.

4. Lincoln appears to have had a strong popular mandate among those
states which did not secede. He even succeeded in keeping the border
slave states loyal to the Union.

5. Your argument seems to depend on the notion that Abraham Lincoln was
not a very good president and that someone else (e.g. Douglas,
Breckenridge, or Bell) could have done better. Not only do I believe few
historians would agree, I would like to see your hypothetical assessment
of what these other presidential candidates would have done. (What sort
of a mandate could Breckenridge have obtained? How can a House Divided
bitterly provide a mandate to anyone???)

andy

PS We should probably edit the newsgroups line.
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Did Lincoln Provoke the Civil War (was Re: Electoral College)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:01:16 GMT

In article <1e6vm2INN7i2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>John Updike's new novel, Memories of the Ford Administration, is in
>large part about James Buchanan, the president just before Lincoln.
>One of the things the novel suggests is that if Buchanan had gotten
>married, he would never have become president and the Civil War would
>never have happened.
>

Sounds like an interesting book, does "novel" imply that it is fictional
to some degree?

Perhaps a lot of things would never have happened if Lincoln had not been
elected.  History, however, has made it's decision and with Lincoln in
office he was faced with the question:

Are the states sovereign over the federal government?

This was the real issue of the war and slavery was merely the context in
which the argument took place.  

Mike Best


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: smarties@nyx.cs.du.edu ()
Subject: test
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 23:14:27 GMT

hello john.

not much change there, then?
							smarties

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: alvin@netcom.com (Alvin H. White)
Subject: HELP. ACCUSED OF FELONY. I ASK FOR JURY TRIAL.
Summary: I have been accused of a felony and seek a jury trial
Keywords: U. S. CONSTITUTION RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:58:34 GMT


HELP! ACCUSED FELON. ASK for JURY TRIAL.

I was accused of a felony violation of California Vehicle Code
Section 23101 FELONY DRUNK DRIVING in the Monterey County 
Superior Court in Salinas, California.

I was a natural born citizen of the United States and a member
of the United States Army at the time of the alleged violation.

Thus I should be fully subject to the provisions and protections
of the Laws and Constitution of the United States, the State of
California and the jurisdiction in which the infamous crime was
alleged to have occurred.

I was present at the scene of the alleged crime.

To the best of my knowledge and belief I did not commit such a 
crime.

To the best of my knowledge and belief no such crime occurred at
the time and place.

I hereby enter a plea of "Not Guilty."

I hereby, humbly and respectfully, request a trial by jury as
mentioned in the Constitution of The United States of America.

As I have been unable to obtain such jury trial by prior efforts
I seek public assistance to be able to exercise such rights.

I ask as witness to this REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL the readership
of the Internet newsgroups misc.legal and 
alt.politics.usa.constitution.
.
In the City of San Jose, California, United States of America
hereby, Sworn and Affirmed this 19th day of NOVEMBER in the year
of our LORD JESUS CHRIST one thousand nine hundred and ninty two. 

alvin

Postal:  Alvin H. White, Gen. Sect.
         G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.
         1505 De Rose Way #66 
         San Jose, CA 95126-4133 USA 

   Tel:  +1 408-286-2794
E-mail:  alvin@netcom.com

======================================================== 
Government Online Database Systems
Bureau for Resource Allocations to Information Networks 
[an idea waiting to happen]

120 West 38 North

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:03:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.022252.5778@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.180031.506@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>>(Essentially, if people can't agree on what the governemnt ought to
>>>do, it should do nothing.)
>
>>I disagree Frank.  History is replete with the tradgedies of regimes 
>>which failed due to weak leadership.
>
>History is also replete with republics that were destroyed by strong
>leaders (or, more often, by several. Each subsequent one assuming 
>slightly more power to "deal with the current crisis."

I agree, it is a fine line to walk but applying this in relation to the
power of Congress I would say that we need a strong executive even if
he is Clinton :)

>>...the Executive the power and momentum
>>to deal with what the Founders recognized as the most dangerous branch
>>of the government
>>		THE LEGISLATURE
>
>Do you have some evidence to this effect? The debates during the 
>convention and ratification seemed to focus on the President (whom
>the anti-Federalists labled "Our New King" and the federal government
>in general. I don't recall any specific objections to legislatures.)

Sure, read Federalist 48.  I believe that Madison discusses the tendency
of representative legislatures to ultimately believe that they _are_
the people and deserve to have all the power.  

I have lost my Federalist Papers but I've been promised a new set for
Christmas - if the number is wrong I'll have to eat my hat and do
some further research.

>(By the way, the power of the executive has grown enormously over
>the past century. And yet, the much weaked Presidents of the ninteenth
>century were able to "deal with the legislature"...)

In some respects you are quite correct.  I would say that in terms of
the presidential veto though that Madison was right, the legislature
has found a way to vitiate the veto (regarding the omnibus spending bill).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution