X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:31:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

In article <tfilt199626@drew.edu>, Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
> 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?

> 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.

> I agree with the court's decision, and am disappointed that it was
> 5-4.  No government should cause an individual to commit a crime, unless
> it can be shown that the individual would have committed the crime any-
> way.  This, I feel, is a common-law protection, or at least a 9th Amend-
> ment protection of the individual's freedom.  When I say "protection of
> the individual's freedom" here, I mean what I feel the 14th Amendment
> means by "privileges and immunities."  Thus, I feel that the same
> restrictions apply to states.

the privileges and immunities clause was emasculated in the 1870s, so
the due process clause is generally used (or equality under law) that
is "life, liberty, and property" can't be taken without due process of
law, which doesn't just mean after a legal procedure for than blacks
could loose the right to property under any Jim Crow law.  The ninth
amendment is so vague that the court shies away from using it.  Ditto
the tenth much of the time.

> Never did I say that the SC *had* to stay within the bounds of the
> attorney's arguments.

read the first line of the post again.

> they weren't aware of its existence or whatever.  So having a good at-
> torney *IS* important to winning a case in the SC.

it is said we have in this country lousy advocates in the court,
mainly because few do slowly Supreme Court work. Luckily, a bad
attorney can be less of a hardship with the rules of the Supreme
Court.
>
> I admit I would benefit from a memorization of the 14th amendment,
> or at least from having a copy of it.  But I feel I have a fair enough
> understanding of its major provisions to have an educated opinion as to
> what it means even as I write.

if you say so
>
> 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.
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.

 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
wants to use to overturn Roe which he apparently liked in 1980) will
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.

>
>>                 -JOE
>
> 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.

                -JOE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU