HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:34:58 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.230526.1014@qualcomm.com>, Qualcomm.Com. (DROBINSON
@QUALCOMM.COM) wrote:
> 
> I need some information please. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
> Is the term "seperation of church and state" found in the Constitution of the
> United States? Please advise as to where it is found!
> Please send your responses to: Dwight Robinson Qualcomm.Com

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....


--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Right to Wear Headphone?
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:55:51 GMT

alvin@netcom.com (Alvin H. White) writes:

[alot of nothing deleted.]

>When the department saw them they ordered me
>to remove them although they did not interferre with my work.

It is your opinion that they do not interfere with your work.


>I, because of conscience, and the belief that it would cause
>my untimely death, the death of members of my family, and the
>death of many innocent members of the community refused to
>comply with the order for which there was no contractual
>authority and where I believed that the "right to life"
>provisions of the United States Constitution would protect me.
>I was fired.

You are employed by a company or person. That person asks you to 
comply with orders regarding your work atmosphere, performance,
duties, etc. If you disagree with the instructions you receive,
you can 1) object and risk being terminated, 2) comply, 3) leave
for another job. 

You chose option #1. Your employer decided you were not a worthwhile
employee. End of story.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:21:23 GMT
	<1992Sep12.004220.12722@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California

In article <1992Sep12.004220.12722@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
   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.

Please explain to me how buying a gun in this manner doesn't violate
my Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against
myself.

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
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 00:55:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.154608.10386@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>It isn't at all clear that this is a "privilage or immunity" of 
>>citizens of the United States. Nor is it clear the framers of the
>>Fourteenth Amendment intended it to have this effect: Was there
>>any mention of the subject during the debates over the Amendment?

>Likewise, I wonder if they mentioned freedom of speech.

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.)

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: FEMA (Have You Heard of Secret Executive Directives?)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:36:17 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

The Iran-Contra hearings in 1987 called attention to a significant
number of secret executive directives called National Security
Decision Directives (NSDDs). Unlike proclamations and executive
orders, they are not published in the Federal Register, even though
they often have a direct impact on employees within the federal
government and on private citizens. Some of the directirves are
publicly released; others remain confidential and classified. A study
by the Berneral Accounting Office in 1988 determined that at least
1024 presidential directives have been issued since 1961 and only 247
of those were publicly released. NSDDs allow the executive branch to
set policy while skirting public, congressional and judicial review.

-- taken from p 112 of "Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and
the President", Third Edition, REvised, by Louis Fisher ---
-- 
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: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Is Civil Seizure/Forfeiture Constitutional?
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:26:24 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <RJC.92Sep10123907@devo.unify.com> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
]What is missing is the requirement that a probable cause seizure be
]followed up by a timely filing of charges.  This should be made a part
]of the Code of Civil Procudure (or the appropriate "Rules" book).  The
]fact that it's not is unconstitutional, IMHO.

What is also missing is a requirement that the seized assets be
returned, intact, with COLA and interest added in, when the individual
is found not guilty or when charges are not filed in a reasonable time.

Today, they can take the money, file charges, lose the case, and still
keep your money (or your house or your car). Or, they can just
keep the money and not file charges, and you have to sue to get it back,
with the burden of proof on YOU to prove your innocence.

[disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I am going by what I have read.]

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: 27th Amendment
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 08:23:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.015232.29043@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>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."

>>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]

From "Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress" (the official
records of the Congressional debates at that time):

"Mr. Livermore was not satisfied with that amendment; but he did not 
wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better 
if it was altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress
shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the right of
conscience...

the question was then taken on Mr. Livermore's motion, and passed in
the affirmative, thirty-one for, and twenty against it."

I really don't care what Ira Glasser has to say on the subject: I 
have the primary source in front of me, and any disagreement with
Glasser's writings only question her credibility.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: U.S. Constitution/Declaration of Independence texts
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:55:57 GMT

In article <RFB.92Sep10152657@H.cs.cmu.edu>, rfb@CS.CMU.EDU
(Rick Busdiecker) writes:

Don't trust this document!  This is an annotated version (it looks like
an e-text version of the one available by ftp written in LaTeX)

I found several punctuation "errors" in the LaTeX version, and I
don't trust it (until I can proof it against an unadulterated copy).
The footnotes are not necessarily correct, either:


> 1.  The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every
> second year by the people of the several States, and the elector in each
> State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most
> numerous branch of the State Legislature.  2.  No person shall be a
> Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and
> been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
> elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
> 3.  Representatives [and direct taxes] <<Altered by 16th Amendment>> shall
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this
> Union, according to their respective numbers, [which shall be determined by
> [...]

Now compare it to the actual Amendment referenced:

>                                AMENDMENT XVI
> 
>      Passed by Congress July 2, 1909.  Ratified February 3, 1913.
> 
>    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
> whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States,
> and without regard to any census or enumeration.

No mention of "direct taxes" in the 16th.  Get an un-annotated version
and use your own judgement...

-- 
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,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:32:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

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.
[...]

I'd say the courts sometimes say the Bill of Rights protects
schoolchildren and sometimes they say it doesn't. I don't think there
is a general rule.

-  Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: aboufadel@scsuc.ctstateu.edu (ABOUFADEL,E)
Subject: Re: 27th Amendment
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Southern Connecticut State University - Computer Center
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:21:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.022736.23946@convex.com>, tighe@convex.com 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's the one
>>to the effect that Congressional salary changes can't take effect until
>>after the next election.  What are the exact words of the amendment?
>>Has it been officially acknowledged?  I knew there were some questions
>>about its validity because it was originally proposed in 1789.
> 
>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.

	My understanding is that he DID certify the amendment soon after
all of the publicity about it last year.  I think the big question is how
soon will Congress be sued by someone using the 27th Amendment.

Ed Aboufadel
Southern Connecticut State University

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: hollowr@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (R. Holloway)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Summary: Separation of Church & State
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 01:55:48 GMT

In article <RJC.92Sep11102453@devo.unify.com> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:
>In article <RFB.92Sep10145449@H.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>   In article <1992Sep9.230526.1014@qualcomm.com> Qualcomm.Com. (DROBINSON @QUALCOMM.COM) writes:
>
>      I need some information please. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
>      Is the term "seperation of church and state" found in the Constitution of the
>      United States? Please advise as to where it is found!
>
>   I used grep(1) on my on-line Constitution to determine that the word
>   church does not appear in the Constitution, therefor it should be safe
>   to assume that the phase `seperation of church and state' does not
>   appear in the Constitution.
>
>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.
>

This concept is derived from the writings of John Locke (Re: Religious Toler-
ence), the founder's fear that a specific religion might come to rule the
government (e.g., Church of England & Roman Catholic Church) & the writing of
Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson - the unofficial american philosopher - wrote on
diverse subjects (separation of various ethnic minorities in order to paternal-
istly save the minorities e.g., indians, blacks, etc. & established state
religions).  Essentially, the separation is derived from the 1st amendment:

	"Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion..."

The 14th amend. makes this prohibition applicable to the states.

God is not mentioned in the constitution & the word relition occurs in only 
one other place: in the prohibition of any religious test as a qualification 
for office.  Historically, it appears that the framers were not unreligious, 
but believed that religious matters should not fall to the jurisdiction of the
national government.

Since the Constitution does not define religion, the Supreme Court (SC) has had
difficulty dealing with the definition of & deciding what is appropriate with
regard to religionl.

Under the "Establishment Clause," reflect the differences in the nation regard-
ing religion.  Jefferson, in his writings, remarked that there needed to be
a "wall of separation between church & state...."  As one author on the
subject stated, "... erects a blurred, indistinct, & variable barrier depending
on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."

Hope this helps answer your question.

Ta,

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [rec.arts.books]  Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Summary: 1st amendment
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:59:34 GMT

A repost from rec.arts.books:

From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject:  Re: [UPI] Report: Book censorship, challenges in schools at 10-year high
Date: 10 Sep 1992 16:21:12 GMT

francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>Erik Timmerman writes:
>>	There is a new book on this topic: What Johnny Shouldn't Read
>>	by Joan DelFattore.  Reviewed within the last month in the
> ... Example. Texas would not allow the New Deal to be mentioned
>in their books, since it sounded Commie and not Free Enterprise. Result.
>There is a gap -- literally, a gap -- between Hoover and Pearl Harbor
>where clearly something had been there.

Specifically: Texan schoolbooks are forbidden --by law-- from mentioning
any topic that might tend to show the free-enterprise system in a bad
light.  Since it it difficult to discuss the New Deal without bumping up
against the suggestion that it might have helped the US recover from the
Great Depression, the New Deal is inadmissible evidence.

[Source: "Fresh Air" Interview with DelFattore, broadcast on WBUR (Boston)
Tuesday evening.]

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --                Bush/Gorbachev: One Down, One to Go
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: 27th Amendment
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:38:55 GMT

Here is more history:

Many of the founders wanted the First Amendment to apply to the
States. As originally written by Madison it read "No state shall
violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press,
or the trail by jury in criminal cases." Madison called this "the most
valuable amendment on the list" and it passed by the House (where he
was a member) by the required two-thirds. (It did not pass the Senate
by the required two-thirds, but because the proceedings where secret,
no one knows the vote or the reason.) [_Visions of Liberty_ p. 44]

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:10:27 GMT
	<athos-110992103505@athos.apple.com>
	<1992Sep11.203622.49283@watson.ibm.com> <6337@transfer.stratus.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: rfb@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <6337@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:

   >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. 
   >
   ...Though the supreme court has upheld a lower court ruling in Denver that
   a teacher may not silently read the Bible while his/her students are doing
   seat work...

Two points which I think are relevant here are:
  (1) the teacher is on the job and might very well be prohibited from
      reading anything that is not work-related while students are
      working.  While the far-righteous might want the teacher to be
      able to read the Christian Bible, they might be upset if the
      teacher were reading _High_Times_ or _Hustler_.
  (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.
-- 
Rick Busdiecker <rfb+@cs.cmu.edu>
``Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers''
				- Unknown
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: bass@convex.com (Brad F. Bass)
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:04:01 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Sep11.015114.11004@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:

>The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
>...
>What _does_ occur in the Constitution is the clause, "Congress shall
>make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
>free exercise thereof."
>...
>This really seems different to me in language and intent from the
>usual "separation of church and state" platitude.
>...
>I guess my point is, it bothers me when
>people re-interpret the Constitution if it allows for possibilities they
>don't like.

Ah, here's a quote that'll make it all clear:

    "...the law is what ever you can convince the court that it is."
    			Robert Heinlein -- _The_Star_Beast_

In the case of the so-called "separation of church and state", that's
what constitutional-law judges have interpreted it to mean.  The fact
that it's not what the Constitution says, has been supplanted by various
falderal such as "what the framers intended" and "the spirit of the law".

So, can the Feds establish a state religion?  NOPE.  Can various religious
groups, be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or whatever, petition and
lobby Congress or attempt to influence legislation or entitlements?  YOU
BET THEY CAN.  They have the right to do so, just like the National Rifle
Association, the National Organization for Women, and General Motors do.
--
Brad Bass		It is a well-known phenomenon that computer programs,
bass@convex.com		left to themselves, will cease to work. This is known
Convex Computer Corp.	as "Bit Rot".  Programs NOT left to themselves also
Richardson, Texas	cease to work.  This is known as "enhancement".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution