HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:51:32 GMT


In article <19540@smoke.brl.mil>, 
matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) said:

> > My feeling is that the world SHOULD faint in shock at the word
> > "Communist" since it is an ideology born of resentment and has
> > violence as it's means of spreading. Thank God it's dying of its own
> > contraditions!  [Craig Edward Smith]
>
> Bravo!  And that goes for all the other ENVY-and-RESENTMENT-based
> ideologies now plaguing the world, including Racism, Anti-Semitism,
> Anti-Americanism, and Feminism.  They all belong on the junk heap of
> history.

Mmmm.  What about Capitalism?  And, for lack of a shorter word,
Patriarchalism?  (Or, to put the question another way, how do you tell
the difference between an ideology that is _based_ on envy and
resentment and one that merely engenders a hell of a lot of envy and
resentment among the have-nots, and a corresponding reactionary
disdain/dislike of the have-nots by the haves?  Is there any difference?)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: verbal contracts
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:33:24 GMT

In article <1ijpeiINN6e4@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>Yes, verbal contracts can be binding. 

Indeed, almost all contracts are verbal; they use words. What's
interesting is to explore the uses of *oral* contracts.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:35:59 GMT

> = (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>> = (William F. Tell) writes:

>>I think the pardon is an important part of our system of law that should
>>not be taken away.  Presidents to take a risk publicly by pardoning
>>someone.  The poll I saw showed strong disapproval for the pardoning
>>of Weinburger.  Ford was certainly not made popular by pardoning
>>Nixon.

>I agree, but I think pardon should be possible only _after_ conviction
>and sentencing.  

Damn right.  As Bush the weenie proved, a pardon can be used to pretend
no crime was committed at all.

>Hmm.  Does the US president's power to pardon any limits at all: 
>Could he pardon himself?

No.  Impeachment is the legislative branch's method of removing a
president, essentially making it impossible for a president to pardon
himself.

>Could he pardon someone "for any and all crimes he may have committed"?

Yes.

>What about future crimes as well?

Yes.  Here's something scary: Neil Bush may be walking around RIGHT NOW
with a paper pardoning him, from his dad.  Neil could whip it out the
moment he's convicted of anything.  If he's never convicted, no one ever
knows that George _issued_ the pardon.

>For that matter, who could control it -- can the Supreme Court judge
>such a pardon unconstitutional?  Could a presidential pardon be
>overruled by anything short of impeachment (if even by that)?

ONLY by that.  Otherwise, the power is absolute.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:06:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1ijn74INN553@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
# #The excellent book "Healing Our World" by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart tells about
# #the taxi situation in New York City.  It seems that in certain parts of
# #town, it is so dangerous that no licensed taxi driver will go there.
# #Taxi medallions are hard to come by (the city limits the number) so it
# #prevents the people who are poor and unemployed from operating in this
# #area legally.  These laws helped keep the lower class from ever being
# #able to make their own way in society.
# 
# If they are poor, would they be able to afford to take a taxi on a regular
# basis?
# 
# --Tim Smith

It makes it hard for poor people to go into the taxi business, not
use taxis.  Remember that most government regulation of business is
done for the benefit of those regulated.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Blacklisted from Banking System for $58.59 overdraft!
Keywords: ChexSystems, Bank, ATM
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:32:05 GMT


Would a national database of people who are to be denied checking
accounts be illegal under anti-trust laws?

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Subject: Re: Oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 16:49:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.165311.25649@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan8.004555.27609@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, 
>titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) said:
>
>> Could some of the net lawyers please explain with some precision
>> what this term "compelling interest" means, how it's different than
>> the class prejudices of judges, and why it is that compelling
>> interest is not needed for all laws.
>
>There will now be a brief delay while everyone on the net who's ever
>studied constitutional law collapses in gales of laughter at the idea
>of explaining with _any_ precision exactly what "compelling interest"
>means...

Nah, it's easy.  Perhaps if Clinton gets a few Supremes nominated, it will
get tough again.  For now, though, the Rehnquist court defines
"compelling [government] interest" as "interest."
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:15:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.213001.7546@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
|> What Mark *has* said is that the appellate court decision does *not*
|> prove that North is *not* guilty. 
There seems to be some revisionism here.  Anyway,  I will certainly agree
that the appellate court decision does not prove that North is not guilty (factually
as opposed to legally).
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: simon@matagami.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Organization: Universite de Montreal, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:23:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.053934.21832@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>The aphorism about shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater originated
>with Justice Holmes in the case of Schenck v United States during the WWI
>era.
>
>It was used as a justification to uphold the conviction of one Schenck,
>an anti-war socialist who had been passing out to conscriptees outside
>a recruitment center anti-draft leaflets comparing conscription to slavery.
>He was convicted under a federal law for attempting to obstruct the
>draft.

[......]

>Now, even today's Court would rule 9-0 in the other direction.  I'm
>curious where exactly it was that Holmes went wrong--or, if indeed, he 
>*did* go wrong.

I'm curious as to what one can possibly mean by "Holmes went wrong".
Rampant moral perversity?  Insufficient prescience in guessing what
the folks in black gowns would happen to be thinking this week?
Transgression in the eyes of Heaven?  Personal disagreement with Dan
Simon or Ted Frank?

Justice Holmes called 'em as he saw 'em--just as the current bunch do.
If one contemplates the possibility that he may have "[gone] wrong",
then one must consider the possibility that the current Supreme Court
may also have "[gone] wrong", and pretty soon one is wondering why all
these critical decisions about how a society governs itself are being
trusted to a panel of appointed blowhards in the first place.  That
way surely lies democracy, or some other such madness.


"Que dites vous?  C'est inutile?  Je le sais!		Daniel R. Simon
 Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succe`s!"	simon@iro.umontreal.ca
					-Rostand
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Taxi Limitations (Was: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?)
Organization: The Devil's Advocate
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:29:59 GMT

In <C0Jp3t.HG1@panix.com> sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber) writes:


>And BTW, it isn't just the poor & those that live in out of the way places
>that suffer from the inadequately regulated oligopoly on taxi service.  There
>are too few taxis, period, in Manhattan, and nowhere near enough in the outer
>boros.


IMHO, there are *too many* taxis in Manhattan, which pollute the air,
crowd bike riders, destroy the public streets through wear and tear,
and generally lower the quality of public life for the majority of
non-cab riders..  What there aren't enough of are safe reliable
busses, carless streets and bike lanes.

With ready access to taxis, the relatively-well-to-do can essentially
ignore the inadequate public transit system, and that's exactly what
they do.
-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Pardons, Impeachments and Crimes (was President pardons himself)
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:25:39 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

In article <1993Jan12.144439.22438@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu  
(William December Starr) writes:
> 
> In article <C0pEK6.IA6@vcd.hp.com>, 
> johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) said:
> 
> > > Can the President of the United States pardon himself? [Mike Judson]
> >
> > Not if he has been impeached. The only reason Ford could pardon
> > Nixon was that Nixon was never impeached.

But this was not my question.  The question was: can the President pardon
himself?  As I interpret the Constition, he can.  The only restriction
placed on pardons is that it can not be done after an impeachment.

--
If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because 
maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you 
because, hey, free dummy.

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 10:06:15 GMT

In <TT.93Jan9163133@tarzan.jyu.fi> tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.213559.12410@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>  As Bush the weenie proved, a pardon can be used to pretend
>>no crime was committed at all.

>Exactly.  Perhaps it would be good to require that a pardon
>is effective only insofar as the crimes are confessed:
>e.g., after being pardoned the pardonnee must list all crimes he wants
>to claim pardoned and anything he omits will remain prosecutable.

Well, I don't know about that, but the way I read the Constitution,
accepting a pardon is an implicit ADMISSION of guilt.  You can't be 
pardoned if you didn't do it.

>>Yes.  Here's something scary: Neil Bush may be walking around RIGHT NOW
>>with a paper pardoning him, from his dad.  Neil could whip it out the
>>moment he's convicted of anything.  If he's never convicted, no one ever
>>knows that George _issued_ the pardon.

>Huh?  You mean there is no need to publicize the pardon in any way --
>Bush could write blanket pardons to everybody he thinks might beed
>it at some later date?  

I don't think so.

>>>For that matter, who could control it -- can the Supreme Court judge
>>>such a pardon unconstitutional?  Could a presidential pardon be
>>>overruled by anything short of impeachment (if even by that)?

>>ONLY by that.  Otherwise, the power is absolute.

>But will even impeachment override pardons made before it -- what if,
>as soon as the impeachment process is started the president issues
>pardons to all and sundry in a hurry, or is his power of pardon
>suspended during the impeachment process?

The things are completely separate issues, having NOTHING to do with each other.

A pardon prevents someone from being punished for committing a crime.

Impeachment is the process for trying and removing an official from office.  

If you impeach (and convict) the president, you remove him from office.
Nothing more.  It doesn't override anything.  It has nothing to do with
a pardon, or any other action he may have taken while in office.

You can *only* impeach someone in office.  Weinberger is free from
impeachment.  But anyone *in* office is not, whether they've been 
pardoned or not.  For instance, if the Congress decides Attorney General
William Barr is a scum-of-the-earth person involved in the coverup of
the Iraqgate scandal, they can impeach him.  If Bush pardons him, Barr
can't be prosecuted for any crime.  But he can be impeached, which will
remove him from office (if he's convicted.)

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: grace@cellar.org (Grace Kirkwood)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: COMMON LAW
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:25:27 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

Does anyone have any information regarding "common law"?
What does it really mean?
What if children are involved?  
Does a father have the same rights as a divorced father?

What if the couple didn't have any intention of getting married and had a 
child?  What are the father's rights then?

I would appreciate any HELP on this matter.

Grace

------
grace@cellar.org (Grace Kirkwood)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 539-3043
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton)
Subject: Re: President pardons himself
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:09:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Mike Judson (judson@watserv.ucr.edu) wrote:
: Can the President of the United States pardon himself?
: 
: -------------------
Not if he has been impeached. The only reason Ford could
pardon Nixon was that Nixon was never impeached.

John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne



Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh? (long)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 09:02:57 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:
>The treasury does NOT print money. They are not even able to coin money.
>
>The treasury is an office of the executive branch. The constitution
>specifically gave the CONGRESS the power to COIN money (*not* print paper
>money), but gave it no power to delegate this authority.

But surely they implicitly are granted the power to delegate this.  The
Founding Fathers can't have meant for Congress itself to coin money, could
they?

--Tim Smith
From: billd@informix.com (William Daul)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: legal advise on a release form?
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:28:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Originator: billd@cheetah

I would like to include some materials in a publication I plan to edit.  The
materials will be submitted from a number of domestic and international
people.  I expect that most of them will allow the material to be published
without compensation.  What I need is a description of what a release form
would include to free me to publish materials from other people.  Could you
send me some advice....


Thanks,  --Bill
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 William Daul             Advanced Support      INFORMIX SOFTWARE INC.
 4100 Bohannon Dr.        (415) 926-6488 - wk
 Menlo Park, CA. 94025    uunet!infmx!billd  or  billd@informix.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: tt@marius.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Originator: tt@marius.math.jyu.fi
Organization: University of Jyvaskyla
	<1ia0grINNfdt@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:38:55 GMT

In article <1ia0grINNfdt@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:

>I think the pardon is an important part of our system of law that should
>not be taken away.  Presidents to take a risk publicly by pardoning
>someone.  The poll I saw showed strong disapproval for the pardoning
>of Weinburger.  Ford was certainly not made popular by pardoning
>Nixon.

I agree, but I think pardon should be possible only _after_ conviction
and sentencing.  

Hmm.  Does the US president's power to pardon any limits at all: 
Could he pardon himself?
Could he pardon someone "for any and all crimes he may have committed"?
What about future crimes as well?
For that matter, who could control it -- can the Supreme Court judge
such a pardon unconstitutional?  Could a presidential pardon be
overruled by anything short of impeachment (if even by that)?
--
Tapani Tarvainen  (tt@math.jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:31:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1ia0grINNfdt@agate.berkeley.edu> wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>
>I think the pardon is an important part of our system of law that should
>not be taken away.  Presidents to take a risk publicly by pardoning
>someone.  The poll I saw showed strong disapproval for the pardoning
>of Weinburger.  Ford was certainly not made popular by pardoning
>Nixon.
>
>Haven't most or all of the Iran-Contra convictions that went to trial
>(like Poindexter's and North's) been overturned on appeal?  Why doesn't
>Walsh give it up already?   

    Perhaps, because so many questions about the Iran-Contra have yet
    to be answered.

    For example, who was in charge of what later became known as "Irangate"?
    We already know that both Secretary of State and Defense opposed it.
    Reagan himself?  With all due respect, Ronnie was simply incapable of
    masterminding the entire operation.  Ollie North?  Nah... he was just 
    following the orders.  Noone?

    Who was that high-ranking official in the Reagan administration
    most likely to get a job of managing a covert operation requiring 
    considerable foreign policy experience?  Could that be the same guy
    who is now trying hard to cover things up?







Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Pardon stuff..Define please
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:20:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.154056.4660@ncsu.edu> storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS) writes:
>
>All this talk of pardon's, and I see that many of the replies are not related
>anymore, I thought I'd ask a simple question to reinforce/teardown something
>I was once told.
>
>I have been told that to receive a pardon, one must admit guilt.   OR is it 
>truly a method of legally covering one's own tracks.....

Seems to me you are asking "If you get a pardon, can we assume that you are
guilty?"

The answer is no. You need not admit guilt to receive a pardon. You need not
be found guilty to receive a pardon. Pardons are often used to blot out a
travesty of justice, as in the accessory to murder charge that was put on
the doctor who treated John Wilkes Booth. Was he guilty? No, he was doing
what any doctor would do. The pardon (I don't know if it has actually come
through or not) in his case is to exonerate him.

A pardon does not indicate guilt. It therefore can be used to stop the
prosecution of an alledged crime.

Is this bad? Only if you have already made up your mind to throw the book
at the pardonee.

--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                (This sig intentionally left blank)                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)



Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sorry, we don't accept cash... Huh?
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:50:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) falls back, back, back way
out near the fence, he jumps and grabs the following from way out in left
field:

>Federal Express is a business. You are in individual and have a choice. If you
>were, say, a taxi company, you MUST drive and MUST pick up everyone requesting
>a ride (including pick ups in dangerous parts of town). Otherwise you WILL
>have your taxi license revoked.

Robrert: Fed.Ex. is not a taxi company so rules, laws and licenses that
affect taxi companies don't apply or are you now arguing that Fed.Ex. has
to give you a ride somewhere ?

The comparison that you're striving for is... if there were no laws that
said a taxi driver has to pick anybody up from anywhere at any time you
would be demanding that they have to.

You don't drive for Fed.Ex. you don't drive for a cab company you aren't
likely to be affected by the death of those drivers yet you continue to
insist that people risk their lives unnecessarily.

What do you do for a living... I want to make some laws that place you in
the middle of So. Central L.A. at night with money in your pocket.

tom
From: mark.schumann@pcohio.wariat.org (Mark Schumann) 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Weinberger's Pardon
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:39:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PC-OHIO BBS - Cleveland, OH - 216-381-3320
Reply-To: mark.schumann@pcohio.wariat.org (Mark Schumann) 


Craig Edward Smith wrote:

!Maybe Congress did not want funds going to the Contras, but the Executive
!did. Who decides foreign policy, anyway?

Congress, through legislation passed by majority vote and signed by
the President.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Read your Constitution.
                                                                                                                   
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|       PC-OHIO PCBoard BBS - Cleveland, Ohio - 216-381-3320       |
|   Computer Shopper Best BBS in America - 35 lines USR DS 16800   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton