HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [misc.legal] Drug dogs used in public schools
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:42:16 GMT

[ public schools are culture, right? ]

A repost from misc.legal:

From: O1EVERT@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Tom Evert)
Subject: Drug dogs used in public schools
Organization: The University of Akron
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:37:32 GMT

My 15 year old son came home from school and said school officials had drug
sniffing dogs in during the summer looking for drugs/drug residue in lockers.
He also said the high school would be visited a few more times during the
year during Christmas break, etc.  Can anything be done about this (other
than expressing outrage to the school and board of education)?
 
This is yet another example of GUILTY until proven innocent which
unfortunatly seems to becoming more common place every day!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church & State
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:52:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.003425.12011@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> The Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from "abridg[ing] the
|> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This is
|> generally assumed to include the rights refered to in the Bill of
|> Rights. It isn't at all clear that the seperation(sic) of church and
|> state is such a "right." 

Separation of church and state is NOT a right(?).  The separation of
church and state is a mechanism to preserve the right (though not
specifically enumerated) of freedom of religion for individuals.
Given the diversity of people and beliefs and the 14th amendment, 
I cannot hold any validity to the claim that "separation of church 
and state" does not apply to the State (and local) governments.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Federalist Papers 
Keywords: Federalist Papers ASCII file  
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:44:23 GMT

dtesch@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (David) writes:

>Does anyone have an electronic copy of the Federalist Papers?
[...]

The output of "archie -s feder15":

(I knew the name was "feder15" because I saw it in the project
gutenberg mailing list.)

================================================
Host ftp.uu.net

    Location: /doc/literary/gutenberg/etext91
           FILE -rw-r--r--     441547  Dec 12 1991  feder15.txt.Z
    Location: /systems/ibmpc/msdos/simtel20/books
           FILE -rw-r--r--     467260  Jun 15 16:00  feder15.zip

Host isfs.kuis.kyoto-u.ac.jp

    Location: /mirrors/simtel20.msdos/books
           FILE -rw-rw-r--     467260  Jun 16 05:00  feder15.zip

Host nic.funet.fi

    Location: /pub/msdos/SIMTEL20-mirror/books
           FILE -rw-r--r--     467260  Jun 22 15:46  feder15.zip
    Location: /pub/msdos/magazines/books
           FILE -rw-r--r--     467260  Jun 22 15:46  feder15.zip

Host nic.switch.ch

    Location: /mirror/msdos/books
           FILE -rw-rw-r--     467260  Jun 15 22:00  feder15.zip

Host plaza.aarnet.edu.au

    Location: /micros/pc/oak/books
           FILE -r--r--r--     467260  Jun 15 20:00  feder15.zip
    Location: /micros/pc/simtel-20/books
           FILE -r--r--r--     467260  Jun 15 20:00  feder15.zip

Host quake.think.com

    Location: /pub/etext/1991
           FILE -rw-rw-rw-     467260  Jun 13 11:08  feder15.zip

Host rigel.acs.oakland.edu

    Location: /pub/msdos/books
           FILE -rw-r--r--     467260  Jun 15 20:00  feder15.zip

Host sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de

    Location: /pub/msdos/simtel/books
           FILE -rw-rw-r--     467260  Jun 15 20:00  feder15.zip

Host swdsrv.edvz.univie.ac.at

    Location: /pc/dos/books
           FILE -rw-r--r--     467260  Jun 15 19:00  feder15.zip

Host tupac-amaru.informatik.rwth-aachen.de

    Location: /pub/rz.archiv/simtel/msdos/books
           FILE -rwxr-xr-x     467260  Jul  8 14:16  feder15.zip

Host wuarchive.wustl.edu

    Location: /mirrors/msdos/books
           FILE -rw-rw-r--     467260  Jun 15 19:00  feder15.zip
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:28:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.171650.8460@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.015114.11004@news.vanderbilt.edu>, rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>|> 
>|> 
>|>     This really seems different to me in language and intent from the
>|> usual "separation of church and state" platitude.  For example, it says
>|> _Congress_.  It doesn't say anything about what state legislatures may
>|> or may not do.  And in light of the 10th Amendment, it seems to me that
>|> religion was meant to be left to the states, the way that intra-state
>|> commerce, marriage, and drinking laws are, for example.
>
>The 14th Amendment changed this, requiring states to guarantee
>the same freedoms *equally*.  States still have the power to decide on
>commerce, marriage, and drinking but they cannot restrict those
>freedoms guaranteed in the BoR.
>
>-- 
>Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
>yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.


     Please explain this to me.  I have heard this said on occasion.
However, as far as I've been able to tell, the incorporation of the
whole Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment came about through the
implementation of the notion of "substantive due process" -- a judicial
invention.  Let me stress here that I'm not saying that's good or bad
(though of course I have an opinion...); but 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.


John Rickert				   We are under a Constitution,
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu	   but the Constitution is what
					   the judges say it is.
						Charles Evans Hughes

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:39:53 GMT

kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:

>In article <RFB.92Sep9165414@H.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>>Despite being someone who is generally in favor of limiting the number
>>of guns floating about in society, I have to agree with David on this.
>>Despite the lead-in, it clearly states that ``the right of the people
>>to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''  In my mind, a
>>Constitutional Amendment is required for gun control legislation to be
>>legitimate.

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

He's dealing with the law as currently read. The Supreme Court has consistently
held (for quite some time) that the states may not abridge rights granted under
the Constitution. 

Please note that the first few amendments specificly state the these are
rights *of the people*. Therefore the states have no more right to 
abridge them than the federal government does.


-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism et al] Feedback to the Bill of Rights status report
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:12:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.221345.1001@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>A repost from alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan:
>
>From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)

A response to that repost...

In article <1wwn3dg.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>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."

Yuck.  Imagine saying that it is wrong to treat some people better than
others.

>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!

As I suspected, Adams has confirmed that he interpreted no response
to his other points as being "sure, violate those rights".

That's dishonest.  A reasonable person might well comment only on
points they disagree with.  I thought that Adams' discussion of the
other violated rights was reasonable, so I wouldn't have commented on
it while disagreeing with his 2nd amendment discussion.  It turns out
that that's how most people behave.  Yet, Adams insists on interpreting
that silence according to his preconceptions.

>	Clearly this is a problem. The pro-gun advocates feel they are
>fighting a losing battle to protect their rights against government
>encrochment, while simultaneously alienating those who feel that other
>rights are being lost through their support for the very laws which remove
>those rights. Why should _anyone_ support the goals of people who oppose
>their own  (and, yes, I know that it works both ways - many of us who are to
>the left of center DO favor gun control - although few do so to the extent
>that most pro-gun advocates favor limitations on other rights such as
>abortion or free speech).

Adams is worse on this than any pro-gun/anti-drug advocate I've run
into.  If he's representative ...

Gun owners don't go looking for fights with drug legalizers.  In fact,
it's rather easy to turn gun owners into drug-neutral or even
pro-legalization folks.  However, when drug legalizers start stupid
fights, gun owners fight back in kind....

Remember, there's a fundamental difference between gun owners and drug
legalizers.  Gun owners are mostly fighting further restrictions while
drug legalizers are fighting current restrictions.  (Gun owners can be
naive fools who believe "trust me, we'll be reasonable" from folks who
support/don't oppose measures that prove that's a lie.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 20:36:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <athos-110992103505@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>It is not.  It wasn't even in the original constitution.  It was added to
>the Bill of Rights (somewhat) by the first amendment which says:
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>Notice is says "respecting...prohibiting".  IE: you can't *not* let a kid
>pray in school, work, wherever.
>But, like most of the constitution, this has been interpreted away by an
>activist court....

Of course, the "activist court" has never forbidden a kid from praying in
school, work, whatever. This is the kind of tripe that's usually found
supporting the position that "kids" should be allowed to have organized
prayer in schools led (or sponsored, or at least approved) by school (i.e.,
government) officials. 

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

God helps them that help themselves.
	- Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Demonstrations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:43:38 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Followup-To: misc.legal

In <1992Sep15.155500.21689@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU sez:
>
>I "remember" that the Supremes have addressed a similar question,
>namely whether the size of the bond could depend on the expected
>response to the demonstration.  I "remember" that the Supremes
>rejected the "heckler's veto", that the state was responsible for
>costs associated with counter-demonstrations.  (In other words, govt
>can't require folks to pay for the responses to their speech.)

More or less right.  See _Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement_, 60
U.S.L.W. 4597 (June 19, 1992), involving an unpleasant group of white
supremacists and an even more unpleasant ordinance.

In case any of you voters care about these kinds of issues, note that
this was a 5-4 decision, with Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas in
dissent.  (Anyone care to speculate how Edith Jones would have come
out on this one?)
-- 
	     Every time you think, you weaken the nation.
				- attributed to Moe Howard

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:123 alt.politics.usa.misc:17
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Demonstrations
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:40:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.212404.3356@leland.Stanford.EDU>, yergeau@leland (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>Freedom to *peaceably* assemble is not being denied by requiring a permit.

Huh?  Certainly seems like it to me.

>It merely allows the local government to evaluate a demonstration to 
>determine if it is likely that it will become violent.

Wouldn't an announcement be sufficient for this?  In Finland there is
a requirement for such an announcement to the police station wrt
demonstrations.

>Since the state has a duty to protect the rights of all citizens, it 
>cannot allow any and all demonstrations (some of which may be violent or
>infringe on the rights of others) without advance notice.  The state 
>does not have the power to deny the right of assembly (i.e. deny
>a permit).

Could you clarify?  If a permit cannot be denied, how is it a permit?
It doesn't make sense.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church & State
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:40:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.033633.4509@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>This is all very abstract. Perhaps you can give some examples of cases
>in which separation was enforced but in which no one's rights were in
>danger.

The recent ruling about prayers at a high school graduation: The 
school had both a priest and a rabi, neither making any references
to a specific religious system in their prayers. A jewish family
sued, on the ground that this violated the seperation of church
and state and the Supreme Court agreed. I personally do not see
how these prayers violated their right to freely practice the
religion of their choice.

>In any case, an alternative viewpoint (And I believe the viewpoint of
>James Madison) is that the government is only authorized to make laws
>in designated areas and that religion is not a designated area.

This was the opinion of _all_ of the framers (though they disagreed
over exactly which powers should be designated. The Court's modern
interpertation of the commerce clause, by the way, makes a complete
mockery of this principle of limited government.) However, this
was about the _federal_ government. The nature of the state governments
was quite different, depending on the state's constitution, and
usually gave the state a great deal of freedom (so long as it didn't
violate the state bill of rights.)

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:59:12 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY


  People seem to have a hard time accepting that the right of free
speech does not guarantee access to listeners.

Examples:
 1. An editor does not have to print a letter to the editor. A publisher
does not have to publish your book, a TV station does not have to give
you free air time. If they refuse to sell you access at the same rates
as anyone else, that's censorship.

 2. There is no right to force people to listen. Allowing speakers on
street corners is fine, but people in public places in general should
not be subjected to harrassment and/or intimidation.

    People have the right to determine what they read. That cuts both
ways, and the right to publish _Personal Pleasures_ (an autoerotic
magazine) does not mean that a retailer will or should sell the magazine
if it has a cover which will offend 90% of the patrons. This goes for
other magazines, too, which often have covers which are too indicative
of their content. My right to read does no override your right to not
read.

 3. A free communications channel does not have to carry everything the
way a public carrier does. That means that you can't sue me for dropping
your articles from my news site, because I pay for the cost of getting
and keeping them. However, things like public access channels which are
a free part of a commercial venture are under various restrictions (and
should be).
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:24:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.073041.22821@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> That isn't at all clear: The Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states
|> from abridging the "privilages and immunities" of citizens of the 
|> United States. From the debates around the Amendment's adoption, this
|> was probably ment to inply _something_ along the lines of the Bill of
|> Rights (specifically certain right southern states had been depriving
|> freed slaves of), but not necessarily _all_ of the Bill of Rights, nor
|> with absolute force (freedom of assembly, for example, can be infringed
|> by requiring a permit for large demonstrations.)

Freedom to *peaceably* assemble is not being denied by requiring a permit.
It merely allows the local government to evaluate a demonstration to 
determine if it is likely that it will become violent.  If so, then 
the local government can step up law enforcement in that area in case
the demonstration does become violent.  Rights are not absolutes.  They
are in effect only to the point where they conflict with other rights.
Since the state has a duty to protect the rights of all citizens, it 
cannot allow any and all demonstrations (some of which may be violent or
infringe on the rights of others) without advance notice.  The state 
does not have the power to deny the right of assembly (i.e. deny
a permit).

Yes, there have been and continue to be exceptions (people being denied 
the right to peaceable assemble), but the (recent) Supreme Court has 
rather consistently sided with the right to peaceably assemble.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: lohse@rhrk.uni-kl.de (Frank Lohse)
Subject: International PM - exchange wanted
Reply-To: lohse@rhrk.uni-kl.de
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:12:41 GMT


A friend of mine asked me to post the following into this newsgroup. Please
reply to the e-mail address below. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone!

Since I find it a little bit difficult to get appropriate addresses thru
my local BBS, I'm looking for people from the states interested in
corresponding with me by Internet by this means:

You should be a political sciences or law student (just as I am) and be
interested in exchanging views on current political affairs, in English,
French or German.

All other "arts" students would as well be welcome for correspondance.

Please address your E-mail to me at:

Markus_Schlegel@bn.maus.de

Hope to hear from you soon!
Markus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or "voice" me in Germany at
                            +49 228 677124
                                            for first info and contact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Frank Lohse
University of Kaiserslautern
Germany
lohse@rhrk.uni-kl.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:26:49 GMT

In article <RFB.92Sep14151027@H.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>  (2) kids at school are not, in general, protected by the Bill of
>      Rights.  Consider that unannounced searches without probabloy
>      cause, warrants, or anything else have been upheld by various
>      courts.

While this is legal, I think it teaches children a dangerous lesson
about authority, government and their rights (e.g. that it is normal
andf acceptable for their rights to be violated.)

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder