X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:31:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

In article <tfilt318486@drew.edu>, Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:

> I don't think that the 14th Amendment or any other Amendment ever
> was meant to preclude the state from keeping a moral society.  To
> most Americans (don't let the pink triangle fool you), homosexuality
> is grossly immoral--you can hear it from Jerry Falwell, or you can
> read it on the bathroom wall.

the 14th does preclude the states from keeping certain "immoral"
things from entering the law books.  Many felt interracial marriage
was immoral, but it is a breach of equal protection.  Moral reasons
alone aren't compelling to override constitutional rights for morality
isn't a state interest that is so necessary that such liberities can
be broken.  See if you can name one solely "moral law" that can override
constitutional liberties. Take child porn.  The reason why this is
outlawed even with speech rights at issue isn't morality, it is the
protection of the life and liberty of children.

> The 14th as well as the ninth gives you the right to ADVOCATE legal
> homosexuality, but not to practice it.

the first amendment with the 14th gives you the right to advocate, but
Jamie, me, etc. have been trying to show how the constitution does
protect homosexuality.
>
> Also, the Bill of Rights is not totally limited to the federal
> government.  If you notice, only the First and Tenth Amendments mention
> Congress.  The others are in the passive voice, applying to both levels
> of government.

no.  A look in the reason why the bill of rights came into existence
will show that the states wanted to protect themselves from federal
power.  In the 1820s this was made clear in Barron v. Baltimore and
the 14th amendment was needed as were other amendments (i.e. voting
right amendments) to supercede this.
>
>> selves.  How can a military-imposed government take the place of an
> elected legislature?

well, the South did succede from the union, a right to me that the
Declaration of Independence surely makes correct, so surrender means
they are at the will of the victors till they accepted the terms.  The
South wanted to have their cake and eat it too -- succede but than go
back to normal once they were defeated.

> Could people representing the Southern states
> have sued to regain their seats in Congress??

once you resign your seat, you resigned you seat.  Nixon couldn't of
August 10, 1975 said, "hey, I want to bear this out and come back in,"
because he resigned already.  Also, the constitution gives the
Congress the right to accept or reject incoming members (Art 1. Sec.
5).

> Because if not, then
> the 13th thru 15th Amendments are invalid.  And if so, why didn't they?

the 13th amendment was ratified and accepted by enough states before
military reconstruction; don't know about Southern states, but even
they accepted its tenets with their defeat.  The 14th was a
requirement of the military reconstruction to become a full pledged
state again.  It too basically is about the Civil War and much of it
can be seen as a part of the  "surrender terms" for the war never
really ended, just the armies surrendered.  The terms were more
implied, and the South didn't follow them -- they put forth Black
Codes and the like which made the 13th amendment nearly a sham.  The
15th came later.  To see the 14th as invalid would be to argue the
Civil War was fought for very limited ends, which was not the case by
the end.  When the south rejected such ends, they in fact rejected the
surrender terms warranting military rule.

>> I believe, but barely, that the C.W. Amendments are legit, but I would
> like further information.
>
> -Travis
>
history has shown them to be Travis, but then it can be argued the
Constitution itself isn't legit and a big improper way to limit state
power.  Of course, the Civil War seems to have solved that idea, but I
guess I can be wrong.

          -Joe

P.S. If it  wasn't noted before, the reason why there are separate
sex bathrooms is that there are _some_ correct kinds of separation of
the sexes as long as equal protection is there.  One need not take
showers with other sexes to be equal to them, but you do have to have
equal opportunities for jobs to be equal.  Logic often works to nip
such questions in the bud.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU