Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:26:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

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.
> >
> Jamie says this is not revelant, I say it is wrong.  One well known
> case is Mapp v. Ohio which said that "exclusionary rule" applies to
What is the "exclusionary rule"?

> the states.  The defense didn't raise this point, it was a pornography
> case [oh, anyone read about the entrapment cape in NYT Tuesday of
> trying to arrest a 50ish farmer who supports his father for child
> porn?], but the Supreme Court has a right to look at all the issues
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 case brings up.  This was important in a case Travis had some kind
> words for, Dred Scott v. Sandford, for Taney and company decided lots
> more than the attorneys argued.
Never did I say that the SC *had* to stay within the bounds of the
attorney's arguments.  In fact, I would rather they didn't.  All I am
saying is that sometimes the attorneys may bring up a law or precedent
that the SC might not have otherwise brought into consideration because
they weren't aware of its existence or whatever.  So having a good at-
torney *IS* important to winning a case in the SC.


>     And Travis should at least read the 14th amendment if not other
> places that limit state authority before going on and on about how it
> perverts state rights.  Re abortion, the 14th amendment via the 5th
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.

> section gives the Congress a right to pass legislation that enforces
> the "provisions of the article" like "liberty" (privacy or religion,
> which is what abortion is all about ditto homosexuality) or equality
> (ditto).  The court has said that the due process clause of the 5th
> applies equality to an extent to the federal gov't too.
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, 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.

>                 -JOE

I feel that the 14th Amendment places strict limitations on the states,
and good ones too, so that the Constitution now guarantees the protec-
tion of the individual's rights from ANY governmental body in this coun-
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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU