HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Obscenity law (US)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 21:32:17 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:


>    What does that leave for obscenity? Only one thing I can see. Noone
>wants a red-light district in thier backyard. Obscenity law with it's 
>community standards test can be used to oppose this. So I suggest that
>the law should concentrate on regulation and zoning rather than on
>illegality.
>   Let local authorities decide where porn can be sold, rather than
>threaten distributers with criminal prosecution. If the law is written
>correctly, it would allow local video stores to carry porn, and 7-11 to
>carry Playboy, but also provide security for those who want to keep
>red-light districts in check.

Better yet:  legalize it, tax the hell out of it, and let the
free market control it.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24634 talk.politics.misc:64590 misc.legal:21405
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:44:02 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Dec16.050940.3459@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) 
writes:
> >Parol evidence is admissible to resolve ambiguities.
> 
> 
> Right.  But you only do that if you can't resolve the question in the
> four corners of the contract.  There has to be real ambiguity, not
> just arguably different interpretations. 

I think there are ambiguities.  What the heck does "necessary and proper" 
mean, anyway?  Even in contracts, the parol evidence rule has allowed in 
evidence to show that a figure like 10% actually meant a number in the range 
of the industry standard of 9% to 11%.  (These figures are made up, because I 
don't recall the actual ones, but the case is real.)

Another thing is that you're proposing using a mechanism of construing terms 
of a contract to construing terms of a statute.  A statute and a contract are 
two different animals.

One basis for the parol evidence rule is that most contracts are not written, 
and if parties take the work to write down their contracts, it must be 
assumed that they were careful enough to include all the terms they've 
previously thought of.  That's not so in law where the common course is to 
write the statute out.  

Of course, we'd hope that our laws, and in particular, our Constitution is 
drafted with at least as much attention as we would a contract, that's not 
necessarily the case; particularly when the statutes aren't drafted by the 
persons affected by it, whereas a contract generally is drafted by the 
parties or by their agents.

On the other hand, a lot of people, including some reasonable reliable 
authorities, like Justice Scalia, agree with you.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24653 alt.politics.bush:14756 alt.politics.clinton:18892 talk.politics.misc:64866 talk.abortion:52420 alt.rush-limbaugh:11947 alt.activism.d:4343
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:58:41 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Dec17.220538.9555@ida.liu.se> e91petmo@odalix.ida.liu.se (Peter /\/\odin) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>
>>This thread is still going?  I first saw this one back in September.
>
>It'll get a real b

I wonder how long a thread can last on the net?  I quit reading talk.abortion
because the same threads kept getting re-hashed over and over.

Simon
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:45:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <Bysqn1.BsA@austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt
Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) wrote:
> 
> Bush wanted to change the Constitution by ammendment, which is the
> correct, the legitimate method for doing so.
> 
> The Democrats want to do it by appointing judges who will change
> it by loose interpretation so that they can assign the politically
> expedient "meaning of the day" to every sentence in the Constitution.

I guess that's why Nixon, Reagan, and Bush specialized in the appointment
of Supreme Court Justices and Federal judges who reversed an absolutely
unprecedented number of decisions that had stood for decades, with the
Supremes even going so far in their unbridled judicial activism as to
publish opinions on cases that had not been brought before them.

> The Republican philosophy is based on objectivity.  Read the words
> and do what they say.

You mean like the Blessed Republican Martyr Robert Bork, who insisted that
what you do is read the words and then go through huge wads of mumbo-jumbo
to divine the "original intent" of the authors of the Constitution, and
then do what you think you've proved they would have said if they hadn't
all died two hundred years ago.  And it always turns out that their
"original intent," according to Borkian Republicans, was to place all power
in the hands of Big Government and Big Business, and none in the hands of
individuals.

How objective.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:31:27 GMT

In article <12135@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
 
>In <lif60aINN2e8@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>
>|Mark Wilson) writes:
>||> In other words, Do you feel that states should be required to place on the
>||> ballot anybody who so requests?
>||>
>|I thought this is what I answered.  I believe that the courts will rule that
>|states cannot not create unequal rules for ballot access.
>
>But don't other forms of ballot access rules also create inequalities.  That
>is some people are able to meet them and some aren't.
>
Not at all...the inability of some people to meet the rules does not
create an inequality.  Creating different rules for different people
does.  Remember, the law makes it illegal for both the rich and poor to
sleep under bridges.
>--
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:34:20 GMT

>>
>>You've got to admit, there some hypocrisy on the part of some pro-choice
>>promoters- they say abortion is ok, then talk about the "tragedy" of the
>>death penalty.
>
>No more than you have to admit, there is some hypocrisy on the part of some
>pro-life promoters- they lecture on the sanctity of all human life, then talk
>about how justified it is that the serial killer got the electric chair.
>

Hmmm, this sounds more like a response to anyone who disagrees with original 
sin.  What ever your position on abortion, or capital punishment, I have a 
hard time comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a serial killer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:30:01 GMT

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
: The Constitution says I have a right to run for Congress if I am 25
: years old and a citizen.  Should I lose that right just because I
: happen to live in a state with term limits?  The 14th Amendment might
: even come into play here.  Again, if we want term limits (a very bad
: idea in my opinion), I think they need to be imposed via the
: amendment process.

Earlier I posted a "how is it unconstitutional?" question, and now
that I've had a chance to reflect, Jim may have a point with the
14th Amendment issue.  Section 1 of the 14th speaks of equal 
protection -- from a constitutional law perspective, equal protection 
requires that "similarly situated people must be treated similarly";
a state can do otherwise only upon a showing of a legitimate and
important counter-interest. Eg, the state has an interest in public
health, so it can require that surgeons be board certified, even
if there are non-certified doctors who are otherwise qualified. On
the other hand, it cannot deny various rights solely on the basis 
of race, because it lacks a legitimate and important reason for
doing so.

So that raises the question -- why should an otherwise qualified
representative who has been in Congress for 12 years be treated
differently than one who has been in Congress for 6 years?
Certainly *some* senior congress critters are corrupt or 
ineffective, but the same could be said of junior congress
critters, so I don't think that reason is valid.  Does anyone 
see a legitimate and important state interest in making a
distinction?

Bill Cramer

251 West Central Street, Suite 142      | "If the law supposes *that*,...
Natick, MA 01760 USA                    |    the law is an ass, an idiot."
Internet: cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us  |        -- Dickens
CIS: 70322,3412                         |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Argument for broadening the veto power (Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:47:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
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 <1992Dec15.091356.3890@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes:

+>I've seen plenty of discussion about how a line item veto would be
+>unconstitutional and furthermore would give the president too much power. 
+>Although we may need to have an amendment, I disagree that this gives him
+>any more power that he already has.  As one poster suggested, he really 
+>can't add anything extra to the bill, he can only approve what Congress
+>has already passed.

	How can anyone consider a broader veto unconstutional when the 
majority party in the house can create "delegates" who can introduce 
legislation and amendments, plus vote in every matter before the house
except final passage of legislation.

	What the line item veto does is introduce the president into the
budget process in a much bigger way.  It gives that person the power to
decide what is "pork" and what is not.  In effect the president gets the
final say in who gets pork-barrel projects and who does not.

	I dont think cutting the president into the process is any worse than
having ten or less members of congress have total control over the process
as happens now.





Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: aewright@unix.amherst.edu (Anthony E. Wright)
Subject: Request: Jerry Brown Position Paper
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:32:22 GMT

[ Article crossposted from talk.politics.misc ]
[ Author was Anthony E. Wright ]
[ Posted on Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:13:55 GMT ]

I remember seeing on the Net during the primaries a series of Jerry Brown
position papers, including a fairly well-reasoned one on Space Policy. If
anybody out there still has a copy of it, I would apprecaite it if you could
E-Mail it to me. Thanks.

One sentence request: Jerry Brown Position Paper on Space Policy

					Peace,
					Anthony

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24576 talk.politics.misc:64074 tx.politics:7955 misc.legal:21319
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:46:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Dec13.204633.10760
Distribution: usa
Organization: Western Washington University

karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes:

>So do you contend that the practice of bundling hundreds (thousands?) of
>separate spending items togther, calling it a "bill," and submitting it to
>the President with a "take it or leave it" attitude IS consistent with
>original intent?  

	So what?  he can veto it and say why, and submit a version 
with all the crap cut out that he says he will sign if passed and
returned to him.

>What about requiring the President to spend every penny
>appropriated - that didn't come about until the Nixon administration as I
>recall.
	
	What changed?  A new law?  If not, then a new president could
just return to doing it the pre-Nixion way.

JD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: Argument for broadening the veto power (Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 07:19:30 GMT

: >Come on people, you know darn well
: >that Congress oversteps their bounds when they send the President two
: >completely unrelated things (or 2 hundred) and asks him to either
: >approve the whole thing or leave it. This has gone far enough,
: >and we surely need the line item veto.
: 
:         I don't think there is any question that Congress can go to far
: when it does silly things like add military appropriations or local bridge
: projects to environmental bills.  I think the question, though, is the
: problem bad enough to require giving the President more power.  And it
: would give him more power.
:
It seems to me that Congress has indeed overstepped it's bounds. Where in the 
Constitution is it written that a Bill can contain more than one subject?
With that in mind, President Bush was advised to simply use a line item veto,
and then let the Supreme Court decide from there. Bush of course wanted to 
remain non-confrontational, but look where it's got him. If Clinton has the 
guts, which I doubt, maybee, he'll try this approach.                 

Felix Gorney


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:42:08 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <4e2M02tC2fA901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.050940.3459@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) 
>writes:
>> >Parol evidence is admissible to resolve ambiguities.
>> 
>> 
>> Right.  But you only do that if you can't resolve the question in the
>> four corners of the contract.  There has to be real ambiguity, not
>> just arguably different interpretations. 

>I think there are ambiguities.  What the heck does "necessary and proper" 
>mean, anyway?

I grant you that.  

  Even in contracts, the parol evidence rule has allowed in 
>evidence to show that a figure like 10% actually meant a number in the range 
>of the industry standard of 9% to 11%.  (These figures are made up, because I 
>don't recall the actual ones, but the case is real.)

>Another thing is that you're proposing using a mechanism of construing terms 
>of a contract to construing terms of a statute.  A statute and a contract are 
>two different animals.

I'm not saying they are the same.  I'm saying that the reasoning
behind the parol evidence rule can (and should) be applied to
statutory interpretation.  Even more so than many parties to a
contract, the drafters of a bill have every opportunity to use
extremely precise language to specify what they mean.  Evidence of the
"original intent" of the contract drafters is excluded in part because
the parties to a contract rely on the written document being the
"final word."  Similarly, a legislative bill is usually the product of
long negotations, and tends always to represent a compromise
reflecting the relative power of the various factions supporting and
opposing various measures in it.


>One basis for the parol evidence rule is that most contracts are not written, 
>and if parties take the work to write down their contracts, it must be 
>assumed that they were careful enough to include all the terms they've 
>previously thought of.  That's not so in law where the common course is to 
>write the statute out.  

Well, there is such a thing as "common law."  ANd there you *DO* look
to tradition and "purposes" much more so than in statutory interpretation.


>Of course, we'd hope that our laws, and in particular, our Constitution is 
>drafted with at least as much attention as we would a contract, that's not 
>necessarily the case; particularly when the statutes aren't drafted by the 
>persons affected by it, whereas a contract generally is drafted by the 
>parties or by their agents.

Do you think that the Constitution was not drafted by the members of
the Constitutional Convention?

>On the other hand, a lot of people, including some reasonable reliable 
>authorities, like Justice Scalia, agree with you.


Ok, ok, I take it all back!  :->


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24560 talk.politics.misc:63915 tx.politics:7939
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:56:32 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <168B5B856.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>In article <ByL0DL.10zB@austin.ibm.com>
>curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>>
>>Push for term limits if you want to re-level the branches.
>>Push for the line item veto as well.
>>--
>>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality
> 
>If the original intent of the founding fathers was for wither of these
>two to have been in the Constitution, they could very easily have
>included them when they drafted it.

If the original intent of the founding fathers was to abolish slavery
and let women vote, they could have written THAT in when they drafted
it. Guess they weren't infallible, eh?

The country needs term limits, a balanced budget, and a line-item veto.
All three will *restore* the Government closer to the *true* original
Constitutional intent, by the founding fathers, of limited Government
and a Congress of citizens.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:49:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.070641.9436@anasazi.com>
karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes:
>                  What about requiring the President to spend every penny
>appropriated - that didn't come about until the Nixon administration as I
>recall.
>
>Karl Dussik
>--
The President is responsible for "faithfully executing the laws".  If
the law specifies a certain amount of money be spent for a certain
purpose, then his oath of office requires him to spend that much.  If
he does not want to spend that much, his only recourse is to veto the
bill.  If Congress overrides his veto, then he is again required to
spend the money.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24588 talk.politics.misc:64188 misc.legal:21336
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:54:14 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Dec13.163402.7080@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) 
writes:
> Like any other contract,  you must refer to the
> plain language of the contract [you know, the parol evidence rule], to
> determine what it means. 

Parol evidence is admissible to resolve ambiguities.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Who's weakening the constitution?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 08:31:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.043001.10165@unixland.natick.ma.us> cramer@unixland.natick.ma.us (Bill Cramer) writes:
>MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>: The Constitution says I have a right to run for Congress if I am 25
>: years old and a citizen.  Should I lose that right just because I
>: happen to live in a state with term limits?  The 14th Amendment might
>: even come into play here.  Again, if we want term limits (a very bad
>: idea in my opinion), I think they need to be imposed via the
>: amendment process.

Leaving aside the whole discussion of  merit, and focusing entirely upon
constitutionality, the question should be posed as follows:

I'm over 25, a citizen, etc. Do I have the right to have my name on the
ballot? The answer is clearly no. First, I have to pass many criteria
set by the state including either being nominated by a government-approved
political party or gathering n-thousand signatures. 

Note well: term limits, as defined by the recent constitutional amendments,
do no prohibit anyone from running for office. They simply demote anyone
who has held office for n-terms to the signature gathering process. They
are no longer automatically on the ballot just because they are nominated by
a government-approved political party. That's it!

Term limits, defined in this way, are clearly constitutional. To argue
otherwise, you would have to say, in effect, that Demopublicans and
Republicrats have a right to appear on the ballot that an arbitrary man
on the street does not.

Is that really what you want to argue?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics