HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hollowr@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (R. Holloway)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Summary: Privilages &/or Immunity - moot
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:00:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <1992Sep14.061440.13693@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.015548.18192@leela.cs.orst.edu> hollowr@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (R. Holloway) writes:
>>	"Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion..."
>>The 14th amend. makes this prohibition applicable to the states.
>
>It isn't at all clear that this is a "privilage or immunity" of 
>citizens of the United States. Nor is it clear the framers of the
>Fourteenth Amendment intended it to have this effect: Was there
>any mention of the subject during the debates over the Amendment?
>

Frank:

This is not a privilage nor an immunity, but (as the entire constitution) rather
a prohibition upon the government (national) from acting.  The
14th was ratified into law in 1859.  If you recall the Slaughterhouse cases,
the Supreme Court (SC) did not hold that the Bill of Rights (first 10 amend-
ments) applied equally to the fed & states until the 1930's.  The 13th, 14th,
& 15th amends were the post-civil war amendments & were intended to result in
parity between whites & blacks.  It was never intended to reach so far into
state's rights &/or individual lives.  The SC, however, holds that the consti-
tution is a "living document," which changes to meet the needs of the society.
The theory goes that the original framers only meant to enact a document that
allowed for the equal participation/rights/immunities of landed white males.

Chief Justice Marshall (as opposed to Thomas Jefferson) believed in a strong
national government & he infused the SC & its progeny with a belief that IT
is involved in a great social (societal) experiment.  Given that mind set,
anything goes & stare decisis is moot.  The end justifies the means.  It may
not be great, but it does seem to work.

Regards,
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:41:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.145114.14433@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki) writes:
>Uh, not quite.  You'd be a little more accurate if you said "a Constitutional
>Amendment is required for federal gun control legislation to be
>legitimate".  The Constitution and its amendments only apply to the
>federal government.  At least, they were only intended to.

The intnet of the Fourteenth Amendment was to apply this portection to
state laws as well.

>In addition, Congress can (and has), through its powers to regulate commerce
>and raise taxes, pass legislation that for all practical purposes, is gun
>control legislation.  What makes them constitutional is that nobody's
>rights are being infringed.  Making it hard to buy something is quite a
>bit different (at least from a legal point of view) than prohibiting buying it.

Also quite irrelevant: The Second Amendment says that the right to keep
and bear arms shall not be "infringed", not that it shall not be
prohibited. Making it hard to buy something most definitely infringes
on the right to own it.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:42:47 GMT

leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

[...]
>Try being a sysop telling a user to take his ranting to the debate
>section, rather than other areas of the board. Or (worse yet) telling
>them that if they don't behave, you'll nuke their (free) account.
[...]

People do like to express themselves. And they don't like people
telling them what they can and cannot say (or where). They free speech
forums.

If a user tells the sysop of a private system that the sysop
*shouldn't* suppress the user's expression, that is the user's
opinion. If the user tells the sysop that the sysop (legally) *can't*
suppress the user's expression, that is incorrect.

On Usenet we sometimes see the opposite: administrators at public
universities who think that they (legally) can practice viewpoint
discrimination on school-owned forums.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
faq/media.control
=================
q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
owns, right?
(Short Answer: No.)

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/faq/media.control

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/faq media.control
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Subject: Re: Is Civil Seizure/Forfeiture Constitutional?
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California
	<DLB.92Sep9093718@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:39:07

In article <DLB.92Sep9093718@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
   This has recently been discussed in the talk.politics.guns newsgroup
   as well.  "Due process of law" is a phrase of art, and includes much
   more than a conviction in a criminal or civil trial.  In general, it
   includes many court actions, including seizure warrents for sake of
   evidence, commitment papers, and other actions.  Police officers can
   also seize property on probable cause; this is the kicker that a lot
   of the present civil forfeiture laws are depending on (if a dog reacts
   to the money, it is drug related, and is seized).

   I believe that the present activities in civil forfeiture are indeed
   unconstitutional; however, the Supreme Court has ruled on forfeiture
   in a case involving the RICO statute (I believe --- legal scholars may
   want to check me here), and seems to disagree with me.  They didn't
   even ask me.

What is missing is the requirement that a probable cause seizure be
followed up by a timely filing of charges.  This should be made a part
of the Code of Civil Procudure (or the appropriate "Rules" book).  The
fact that it's not is unconstitutional, IMHO.

--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  | This space for rent. |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: tighe@convex.COM (Mike Tighe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: 27th Amendment
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:27:36 GMT
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
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 article <1992Sep8.213746.12966@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vande
rbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>
>    So, whatever became of the proposed 27th Amendment?  It's the one
>to the effect that Congressional salary changes can't take effect until
>after the next election.  What are the exact words of the amendment?
>Has it been officially acknowledged?  I knew there were some questions
>about its validity because it was originally proposed in 1789.
 
It is in limbo. While it has been ratified by 39 states, it is not yet
part of the constitution. It still needs to be certified by the Chief
of National Archives, Don. W. Wilson. As far as I know, He has not
done this.
 
The age issue is kind of misguided, since of the 39 states that have
ratified it, 31 states have done it since 1983.
 
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and
Representatives, shall take effect until an election of Representatives
have intervened."
 
 
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:55:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.010900.15021@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>
>[...]
>>    On the other hand, the Supreme Court has held that speech, expression,
>>and the like may not be banned for their _content_  per se.
>[...]
>>    Forbidding the reading of the Bible silently in class because of
>>its content is inconsistent with the Court's other rulings.
>[...]
>
>The Court distinguishes between expression on private property (or in
>a traditional public forum) and on-the-government-job speech directed
>at childern who are compelled by law to attend.
>
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


   Pray tell, how is reading the Bible (or the Qu`ran, or Confucius, etc.)
_silently_ "speech directed at children who are compelled...to attend"?


John Rickert				  One sparrow does not make a 
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu	  spring, nor a day...
							Aristotle



Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church & State
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:01:28 GMT

RE: examples of cases in which separation was enforced but in which no
    one's rights were in danger.

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>The recent ruling about prayers at a high school graduation: The 
>school had both a priest and a rabi, neither making any references
>to a specific religious system in their prayers. A jewish family
>sued, on the ground that this violated the seperation of church
>and state and the Supreme Court agreed. I personally do not see
>how these prayers violated their right to freely practice the
>religion of their choice.
[...]

I need more information about your viewpoint. Do you see establishing
a state chruch or giving state aid to churches as violation anyone's
right to freely practice the religion of their choice?

- Carl

BTW: The case is 90-1014, _Lee v. Weisman_. The decision is available
on-line.

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/court-decisions
=================
How to access Supreme Court decisions by anonymous ftp and WAIS. Also
an index of some available Supreme Court decisions.

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/court-decisions

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law court-decisions
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs] Re: "War Against Drugs a Failure"
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:52:36 GMT

A repost from alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs:

From: tkirby@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Kirby)
Subject: Re: "War Against Drugs a Failure"
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 07:01:42 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:


>In article <v7vn2mn.feustel@netcom.com>, 
>feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) said:

>> After hostilities cease we can release all of the prisoners that we
>> have taken during the war.

>Can we also have Nuremburg-type war crimes trials in which the
>soldiers and politicians who executed the atrocities of the war are
>tried for crimes against humanity?  Please?

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

>                   (No, I'm _not_ joking.  Indulging in wishful
>                          thinking, perhaps, but not joking...)

     Oh, yes, please!  There have been SO many crimes committed against
the citizens of this country and other countries by the drug Gestapo.
 
     Wasn't chemical warfare made illegal by the Geneva Convention?  Then
what was this paraquat spraying of Mexican crops in the late 1970s?
 
     The Constitution forbids the seizure of property without due process
of the law.  Was that amendment repealed when they passed the forfeiture
laws?  If so, why did no one tell me?
 
     Blanket searches are also illegal.  Why is more energy now given to
random stop and searches on the highways now than is given to finding
homes for the homeless?
 
     Involvement with any type of Prohibition makes crooks out of the law
enforcement personnel.  I think George Bush knows this.
 
     When an open, democratic society becomes corrupted enough, and the
so-called preservers of democracy become corrupt, expect people to come
out selling a more repressive form of government, e.g. four more years of
Bush.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:16:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.015114.11004@news.vanderbilt.edu>, rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
|> 
|>     What _does_ occur in the Constitution is the clause, "Congress shall
|> make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
|> free exercise thereof."
|> 
|>     This really seems different to me in language and intent from the
|> usual "separation of church and state" platitude.  For example, it says
|> _Congress_.  It doesn't say anything about what state legislatures may
|> or may not do.  And in light of the 10th Amendment, it seems to me that
|> religion was meant to be left to the states, the way that intra-state
|> commerce, marriage, and drinking laws are, for example.

The 14th Amendment changed this, requiring states to guarantee
the same freedoms *equally*.  States still have the power to decide on
commerce, marriage, and drinking but they cannot restrict those
freedoms guaranteed in the BoR.

-- 
Dan Yergeau                         He's dead Jim.  Take his phaser
yergeau@gloworm.Stanford.EDU        and I'll get his wallet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Civics Classes for Law Enforcement Officials
Keywords: police constitution civics
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:42:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.200600.24173@cirrus.com>, lando@cirrus.com
(Dave Landis) writes:

> In a previous article, someone described several instances of Constitution
> abuses by law enforcement agencies.  My question is very simple.  How
> are local, state, and federal officals educated in the U.S. Constitution?

I think you could raise hell with them over this, after all:

	Article VI, paragraph 2:

	This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
	be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which
	shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall
	be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state
	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws
	                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[i.e. the US Constitution supercedes any State Constitution, or Law]

	Article VI, paragraph 3:

	The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	members of the several state legislatures, and all executive
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
	under the United States.

*All* of those public officials have sworn an oath to support the
Constitution.  Any act in violation of that oath is grounds for
impeachment, and removal from office.

> 1)  They [some law enforcement officials] are ignorant of the Bill of Rights

Police are officers of the executive branch, and have also sworn
an oath... ;-)

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Civics Classes for Law Enforcement Officials
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:13:43 GMT

As further proof of problems in our educational system, just count the
spelling errors in my previous post.  While some of them are because I
forgot to proof-read the post, most of the mis-spellings I won't recognize
even if someone points them out to me.  (I recieve my Ph.D. in about one
year ...)
                                           Bill
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:19:27 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

[...]
>Arguably, the Constitution was never intended to seperate church and state:
>The First Amendment was specifically to keep the _federal_ government
>from creating a national religion. It was not intended to forbid the
>states from establishing or subsidizing local religions (I doubt
>Pennsylvania or any of the states of New England would have accepted
>such a restriction in 1791.)
[...]

"When the First Amendment was enacted _no_ state had an established
state church or supported one religion over another. ...  What
'establishment of religion' meant in America in 1791 was precisely
nonpreferential aid. When the First Amendment prohibited the federal
government from establishing religion, it was undoubtedly these
nonpreferential establishments that the framers had in mind."
  [_Visions of Freedom_ by Ira Glasser, p. 75.]

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:26:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.145114.14433@sdc.com>, kenk@sdc (Ken Konecki) writes:
>In addition, Congress can (and has), through its powers to regulate commerce
>and raise taxes, pass legislation that for all practical purposes, is gun
>control legislation.  What makes them constitutional is that nobody's
>rights are being infringed.  Making it hard to buy something is quite a
>bit different (at least from a legal point of view) than prohibiting buying it.

By that reasoning I could strangle someone with a rope and then argue
that I did not kill him, I just used my powers to do some acrobatics
with a rope - the matter that the rope happened to go around someone's
throat is totally irrelevant.  No ones rights were infringed - a rope
has no rights.

Or I could argue that since the federal government has the power to
raise taxes, it can set taxes at 150 percent and jail everyone who
doesn't pay the taxes.

Or I could argue that since the federal government has control over
highway money and some other money going to states, it could legally
blackmail the states to pass any laws it wants them to pass.

Or I could argue that since the constitution doesn't specifically
prohibition the federal government from making laws against saying
"Zaphod Beeblebrox", a law passing a death penalty for saying "Zaphod
Beeblebrox" would be perfectly constitutional.

Or I could argue any number of other bizarre and absurd things, and no
one would believe me unless I had more power and guns and/or better
"ministry of truth" than them.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:30:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.171650.8460@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>The 14th Amendment changed this, requiring states to guarantee
>the same freedoms *equally*.  States still have the power to decide on
>commerce, marriage, and drinking but they cannot restrict those
>freedoms guaranteed in the BoR.

That isn't at all clear: The Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states
from abridging the "privilages and immunities" of citizens of the 
United States. From the debates around the Amendment's adoption, this
was probably ment to inply _something_ along the lines of the Bill of
Rights (specifically certain right southern states had been depriving
freed slaves of), but not necessarily _all_ of the Bill of Rights, nor
with absolute force (freedom of assembly, for example, can be infringed
by requiring a permit for large demonstrations.)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty