HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lsg001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Graham Wilson)
Subject: American Constitution
Organization: Legal Department - Coventry University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:48:57 GMT


Does anyone have a copy of the American Constitution on their computer system ?
I would be grateful if they could either post it to the net or directly to
myself.

Thanks.




-- 
          ****************************************************
          *      Graham Wilson      *  lsg001@uk.ac.cov.cck  *
          *     LL.B.  Law  III     *  Coventry  University  *
          ****************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:53:56 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Oct7.054011.2337@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):

> As I get ready to leave Princeton and cease posting from this location,
> I won't refrain from (1) saying hip hip hurrah for Sinead's performance
> on Saturday Night Live, and (2) reflecting that the logic of the modal
> net "libertarian" position on freedom of speech would PREVENT Sinead from
> speaking.  For the "libertarian" systematically winds up with a strong
> view of property rights (including rights acquired by force and fraud)
> such that the "right" of freedom of speech disappears, to be replaced by
> the PRIVILEGE, always exercised on what turns out to be some man's
> property.

1. Who cares what a shrill, unattractive, talentless harpy does?

2. I hope she had fun.  I care not for her extremist opinions nor for those
of the Catholic Church.  That's why I bid them adieu.

3. She was free do it... once, and they are free to not invite her back.

4. Yet again Nihilges elevates trivia to cosmic importance.  Yet again the 
world at large snickers behind his back.....

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: terry@gtm-inc.com (Terry Gerritsen)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: mass murderer
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:09:09 EDT
Reply-To: terry@gtm-inc.com (Terry Gerritsen)
Distribution: world
Organization: G.T.M. Incorporated, Kingston, ON (613) 546-3078
Content-Type: Text


Kingston Ontario is where I live, and in our area we have 6 Penitentiaries.
In the Kingston Pententiary, we have Canada's most notorious mass murderer, 
Clifford Olsen who has killed 11 children in British Columbia.
Olsen has been serving his sentence in a special isolation cell at the
Kingston Penitentiary.  Yesterday for some "legitamate medical reason",
Olsen was taken by two guards at 8:45 am to the Hotel Dieu Hospital.
When he left the prison he was searched by using a "wand-like metal detecter
something very similiar to what they use at the airports.
At the hospital he was given a normal routine X-Ray, but discovered in
his lower bowl a very convenient key that would open the leg irons, and
handcuffs. Now wouldn't that have been a nice situation, if that key had
not been discovered. Who knows what, might have taken place if the X-Ray
had not revealed this key. Now of course nobody seems to have any idea
how this jerk got a key, but they did guess how one possibility the key got
into the lower bowl. It just blows my mind how this thing we call a human
being, came this close to a possible escape. 
When he was rushed back to the Penitentiary he "passed" the key over to the 
Warden. 
Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gerritsen         |  G.T.M. Incorporated              (613) 384 0162
terry@gtm-inc.com       |  Kingston, Ontario           Fax: (613) 389 4594
                      "Transportation is our business"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: schin@acs.bu.edu (neil schier)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Are there any ABA approved law correspondence schools?
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:20:29 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: schin@acs.bu.edu


Hello

As the subject line says, are there any?

Regards
Neil Schier
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Net-bandit running short of words
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:07:01 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

 
Mikhail Zeleny is already running short of words :->
Answering public messages by private threats:->:->:->
 
> In article <10292279.77102.19750@kcbbs.gen.nz> you write:
> >
> >  
> >> It is to be hoped that Mr Rushdie, as well as some of his numerous Western  
> >> defenders, in this forum and elsewhere, will see fit to contribute towards  
> >> the elimination of the continued threat against his life, which also  
> >> constitutes a menace for the cardinal principle of Western culture, the  
> >> idea of freedom of expression.  I sincerely hope that all participants in  
> >          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
> >  
> >Hey Mikhail!  
> >you should very well know by now that the idea of "freedom of expression"  
> >is just another idea out of basketfull of ideas for us unless you reveal   
> >more about the machinary behind it. We need MORE REVELATIONS from YOUR BOOK   
> >of BOOKS Man! BRING YOUR BOOK ! so that we can compare it word to word,   
> >and see how far you can endure exercising your "freedom of expression"...  
> >Yes Mikhail, I am challenging you :->Don't forget to bring by the  
> >revelations of Rushdie with you.  
> 
> Well, send me your seconds then.  Pistols at 75 meters is my choice.
 
Hey Mikhail, how can you silence words by pistols Man ! 
What happened to your:->
 
;->->> the cardinal principle of Western culture, 
;->->> the idea of freedom of expression.  
 
> >Here you are Mikhail, throw your artifacts like the magicians of Pharoah..  
> >Here is your once in a life time chance....don't miss it Man !  
> 
> I assure you that I won't miss.
> 
> >> the current debate would agree that this action makes the situation more  
> >> fair and equitable.  
 
> >> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu  
 
ya pipi, ya pistol ha ?
 

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:34:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.232047.23120@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>Actually, Article I, Sec 5:

>    "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     shall constitute a Quorum to do business; ...."

>This seems to imply that Congress could set term limits on themselves.
>Now the question is whether this is a power "delegated to the United
>States." (as opposed to delegated to Congress...)

Actually, I believe this clause delegates such power the United States,
and specifically to the legislative branch (Congress). I'm not totally
sure if this power extends to term limits, but it wouldn't be an
unreasonable implication. (By the way, this same clause, according to
the Supreme Court, allows Congress to decide who is the legidimate
state government of any given state, by accepting or refusing to accept
the congressmen that government sends to Washington. Luther v. Borden,
7 How 1, concerning the Rhode Island rebelion of 1841-42.)

>> The Articles of Confederation aren't particularly useful in determining
>> any of this -- as Terry posted, the role of representatives was more

>Ummm... He posted a section from the Constitution, not the Articles of
>Confederation.

I'm not sure I'd call the prohibition in the Articles a term limit, 
exactly:

Article V, paragraph 2: "...no person shall be capable of being a
delegate for more than three years in any term of six years..."

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:41:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <1992Oct15.064117.2603@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>>His postings reek of ambiguity,  sometimes
>>reaching the point of outright error.

>Please cite an example of "outright error."

Please don't.  Or, at least change the title of this thread.  All this
personal bickering is pretty dull.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Original Jusrisdiction.
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Disclaimer: Views expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:24:14 GMT

What does the constitution mean by this phrase: 

   In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme
Court shall have original jurisdiction.  In all the other cases
before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and
under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


Just curious.



-- 
Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
153 N. Hayden Bay Dr.	    \`o_O'    	 
Portland, Or 97217	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
brians@atlastele.com           U
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Original Jusrisdiction.
Date: 12 Oct 92 07:44:54 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct8.132414.10830@atlastele.com>, brians@atlastele.com (Brian 
Sheets) writes:
> What does the constitution mean by this phrase: 
> 
>    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
> consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme
> Court shall have original jurisdiction.  In all the other cases
> before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate
> jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and
> under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

 "Original jurisdiction" is juridicstion for the trial (where the case 
originates).  This is contrasted with "appellate jurisdiction", getting a 
case on appeal from a lower court where the trial was held.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18774 alt.folklore.urban:25885
From: cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:17:21 GMT
Organization: Lanchester Polytechnic

In article <Bw4pw7.C6p@unx.sas.com> sasbmt@jjoyce.unx.sas.com (Bruce Tindall) writes:
>Some scholars have pondered how to extend the succession way beyond
>the current VP/Congressional_leaders/Cabinet list in case of a very
>big disaster.  One proposal has been to list the Governors, in order
>of the populations of their states (Gov. of California first, then
>Gov. of New York, etc.), in case the whole Cabinet goes to meet its
>cabinetmaker.

OK I don't know much about the line of succession for the USA president, but
why have a line longer than about 20? Because if those 20 have been killed.
Then there can't be much of a country left. Unless 20 assinations have taken
place (on the same day?).

Has your country every thought about having By-elections for the president?

If you are going to have a line longer than 20 then it might be best to have
a formula as you do in most countries which have a king/queen. So in the UK
there may be a very high number of people who are in line to the throne.
-- 
Dave                                                       cmh004@cck.cov.ac.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Call this place what you like - Coventry University, Coventry Polytechnic or
Lanchester Polytechnic it is all the same and is called school.
From: zornow@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Claudia Zornow)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:42:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Herpes: can a negligent carrier be prosecuted?
Organization: HP SSD R & D
Newsgroups: misc.legal

dewitt@lumina.ucsd.edu (John DeWitt) writes:

> Thanks to Big Al, Jude, JT, and Brandon, who responded to my query.
> My friend (let's call her "Sherry") was glad to find out that
> Herpes II becomes less severe over time, and that Zovirax comes in
> a tube (for external use) ... the pill form makes her sick to her 
> stomach.  

A good source of information about herpes is the Herpes Resource 
Center (HRC), part of the American Social Health Association.  
They have a hot line and a quarterly newsletter, among other
services.  For more information, write to:

    HRC
    P.O. Box 13827
    Research Triangle Park, NC  27709

Claudia
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:52:26 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <23033@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
> Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.  If it
> is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
> children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
> public school system is not adequate?  Instead of worrying about giving

Exactly.  It is inadequate scholastically, from a discipline standpoint,
and inadequate because conflicting values of parents mean that the
schools are constantly battlegrounds for what values will be taught.
Private schooling solves that.

> parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
> the public school system.
> 
> judson@watserv.ucr.edu

Because private schools cost less than public schools, and give much
better quality education.  My daughter is attending a private school
this year.  It costs $2000/year.  Last year she attended the public
school two blocks away from the private school.  The state spent
$5200/year.  Her class size is now 24, instead of 32.  Because of
the smaller class size, the teacher can give the sort of individualized
attention that she needs, and is no longer bored.  (Last year, she
was bored out of her wits because the material was dumbed down enough
for the below average students, who are about 2-4 years behind my
daughter in reading and writing, 1-2 years behind her in arithmetic,
and at least 2-5 years behind her in science and geography.)

A friend of mine has a daughter with a serious hearing problem.
As a result, he moved her from the public schools to a private
school.  It costs about $2400/year, instead of the public school
cost of $5200/year.  But because the class size was 15, instead of
over 30, the teacher was able to put the effort out to help this
girl learn, in spite of her handicap.

Now, I'm sure that we could get public school class sizes down
to the level of these cheap private schools -- but I'm sure that
it would cost at least $10,000/year, because public schools are
administrator-rich.

Oh, there's one other difference between the private school my
daughter attends, and the public schools in the area.  The public
schools in the area are constantly whining for more money, running
fundraiser activities, etc.  The private school has a small number
of fundraisers.  One of them involves mail order sales of gift
wrapping paper.  Unlike the public schools, where the kids are
strongly encouraged to go out and sell to everyone they know,
the gift wrap fundraiser instructions discourage going outside your
family and relatives.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: taking someone to court...(debt)
Date: 11 Oct 1992 19:31:34 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Distribution: misc
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said
{ex-squeeze owns $$, have note. Afraid that if he tries to
collect, she'll go Chap. 11 or such}

What are the laws on waiting? She may be broke now, but in 1, 2,
n, years she might not be. 

How long can he wait before forcing the issue?


--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:52:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.214735.25070@midway.uchicago.edu> pynq@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <Bw7x0y.IDA@cck.coventry.ac.uk> cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave) writes:
>>OK I don't know much about the line of succession for the USA president, but
>>why have a line longer than about 20? Because if those 20 have been killed.
>>Then there can't be much of a country left. Unless 20 assinations have taken
>>place (on the same day?).
>>
>>Has your country every thought about having By-elections for the president?
>
>That's a good question.  As far as I know, when a Veep takes over, he
>does not then select his own Veep.  I wonder why not.
>
>(The last instance of this was when Jerry Ford became prez.  As far as I
>know, he had no Veep)
>
NO.  I'm fairly certain that Rockefellar was Ford's Veep.  I don't know who
chose him tho.


-- 
<<                                                               >>
<< Michael R. Brown    CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu                            >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                                        >>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Jury Nullification -- The Power is a Right
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:56:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.010159.4125@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.062458.1693@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>
>>I think you fail to see that not every juror who votes to nullify is
>>in fact a nullificationist (one who claims the right to nullify).
>>Few, in fact, give much thought to the general issue of nullification.
>
>I am quite aware of this fact, and have said so here several times.
>I think you are simply avoiding the issue.

I don't see how--I was the person who raised the issue of whether voting
to nullify is the same as claiming a right to do so.

>I am still waiting for someone to show me how this exercise of a moral
>decision within the framework of a legal power is anything less than a 
>moral right, WHETHER IT IS EXPLICITLY CLAIMED OR NOT.

This is an interesting new issue, but not the issue I raised. Feel free to
start a new thread about it.


--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:52:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <Oct.14.14.40.55.1992.16913@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
> > Vice-President
> > Speaker of the House
> > President pro tempore of the Senate
> > Secretary of State
> > Secretary of the Treasury
> > Secretary of Defense
> ...
> 
> But what if one of them wasn't born a 'merkin?

The Vice President is constitutionally required to be qualified to
be President.  The others?  I'd guess that he or she would just be
skipped over.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18638 talk.abortion:42606
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:33:25 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <Bvx7Bo.DzG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>
>Ok.  But the delivery of the raw material HAD to be accepted by the
>receiver in order for child manufacture to take place.  The supplier is
>legally forbidden to have a legal voice in manufacturing decisions.
>Thus, any damages which may ensue from manufacturing a product from 
>a freely accepted supplier of raw material can only be the manufacturer's.
>The supplier loses all control, and all rights, at the moment of delivery.
>
> [...froth, drool...]

What the hell are you talking about? "Child manufacture"? "Raw materials"?
We're talking about HUMAN REPRODUCTION, fer crissakes, not heavy industry!!

You, sir, are a babbling idiot with nothing but a pro-life agenda and some 
cheap scare tactics. Please demanufacture yourself into raw materials, and 
leave us alone...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18799 alt.folklore.urban:25928
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Presidential Succession History
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:35:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Oct16.214735.25070@midway.uchicago.edu>, pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:
> In article <Bw7x0y.IDA@cck.coventry.ac.uk> cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave) writes:
> >Has your country every thought about having By-elections for the president?

It wouldn't have been feasible before at least the telegraph, and
probably the railroad, were widely deployed.  The distances were too
great.

> That's a good question.  As far as I know, when a Veep takes over, he
> does not then select his own Veep.  I wonder why not.

Umm -- that was true until the 25th Amendment was ratified, in February, 1967.
Here's the text of section 2:

	Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the
	President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take the office upon
	confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.

> (The last instance of this was when Jerry Ford became prez.  As far as I
> know, he had no Veep)

Nelson Rockefeller.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines