HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: executive orders
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:40:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan25.122228.12984@athena.mit.edu>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
> In article <1993Jan24.071407.2582@midway.uchicago.edu>
> 	thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> 
> >>	3. end to ban on gays in military
> 
> >>The reports on this issue that I heard last year said this would require an
> >>act of Congress.  Would a Clinton order preventing enforcement of the
> >>anti-gay regulations be illegal?
> 
> >Truman desegregated the military with an EO.
> 
> Was the segregation based on law or custom?  i.e. did Congress say "the
> miltary shall be segregated" and Truman say "I don't care, I'm desegregating
> anyway"?  or had the military always been segregated and nobody thought to
> write a law requiring segregation?

The Army had been segregated since the formation of the first regiments
of "Colored Troops" during the Civil War.  Since Congress required the
Army to maintain at least four regiments of black soldiers after the
war, you could argue that by implication, the Army was segregated by
law.  At least some of the segregation of facilities in the Army was 
reflective of local law and custom.

The Navy had been integrated until that great liberal Democrat,
Woodrow Wilson, got involved.  He issued an executive order prohibiting
the induction of blacks into the Navy, except for messmen and stevedores.

See Bernard Nalty's _Strength for the Fight_ for a history of this
sort of thing.

>     John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)


-- 
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.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23034 alt.censorship:10059 alt.society.civil-liberty:7467 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1518
From: simon@brome.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:54:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Universite de Montreal, Canada

In article <1993Jan18.151505.1167@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.030527.3766@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>>I think the common misunderstanding is on your part: Making law and
>>interperting it are two very different things.
>
>You haven't been reading much philosophy of law, I take it. Even people as
>far apart as H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller agree that interpreting law is
>also making law. Once you start reading a lot of cases in law school, it
>becomes apparent to even the most insistent legal positivist that
>interpretation is generating new law.

So?  The boundary between "legitimate" lawmaking and restriction of
freedom of expression is no more recognizeable, in the abstract, than
the boundary between judicial interpretation and judicial legislation;
any piece of legislation can also, in principle, be characterized as a
form of limitation on freedom of expression.  Yet for some reason
judges and legal scholars never seem to despair of navigating *that*
unbroken continuum.  Indeed, First Amendment buffs have for centuries
been tirelessly inventing terms, elucidating fuzzy concepts, and
delineating esoteric distinctions--all in the service of confining
prohibitions on free expression to the absolute minimum possible,
while still (barely) allowing legislative government to function.

One would have hoped that these same judges and legal scholars, after
devoting such care and attention to the task of mapping out the
complex subdivisions of the free speech/restricted speech spectrum,
might also have made at least a token effort to draw a rough line
between judicial interpretation and judicial legislation.  After all,
fixing the boundaries of constitutional authority *is* part of their
job.  On the other hand, any such effort in that regard could
conceivably have had the unprecedented effect of implicitly *limiting*
their own power, rather than *expanding* it.  It is therefore hardly
surprising that jurists shy away from attempting to define the point
at which judges begin to overstep their powers in straying from
interpretation into the realm of judicial legislation; it is far more
convenient for them simply to throw up their hands in mock
helplessness and announce that unlike, say, the distinction between
the Schenk and Brandenburg tests, the line between judicial
legislation and judicial interpretation is just too darned subtle for
them ever to hope to demarcate.


"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
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Chelsea and the Intif
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:44:20 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <avogadro.728118086@well.sf.ca.us>, avogadro@well.sf.ca.us (Michael D. Sullivan) writes:
> So I don't blame Bill for sending Chelsea to private school after many years of
> public school.  Even though I'm a liberal democrat, I recognize that public
> schools have major deficiencies.  On the other hand, no voucher program could
> open up schools like Sidwell Friends  (chelsea's school) to the poor.  Tuition
> at the top D.C. private schools is over $8000.  We decided that was too much

What do the public schools cost?  Here in California, public schools
cost $5200/pupil/year.  I understand that DC spends more than most
states per pupil.  Are you sure that vouchers couldn't pay pretty much
the whole cost?

> Michael D. Sullivan <avogadro@well.sf.ca.us> <74160.1134@compuserve.com>


-- 
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.
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Purchasing a Horse
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:30:16 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

linda@linda.intel.com (Linda Harbin) writes:

> 
> My girlfriend sold her 6-month old filly last summer.  In the sales contract,
> she specified that the buyer had to give her first refusal if/when he ever
> sold the filly.  Last night, we found out the filly is for sale, and he has
> yet to offer the filly to my girlfriend.  Since it was in the contract, does
> she have any recourse?  Can she make him offer the filly to her first.  What
> if he sells the filly to someone else without ever mentioning it to my friend

Since she knows that the horse is for sale, why doesn't she just call and
ask to buy it? 

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: sizex@bnr.co.uk (Eric Barber)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: archaeology and the law
Date: 20 Jan 1993 09:22:52 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, London Road, Harlow, England.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.199.202.49

My wife has a semester project on archaeology and the law.
She is especially interested in the law on treasure trove.
Does anyone have any information on similarities between
British and US laws of treasure trove, or perhaps the
consequences of not having any?

please email me, and thanks (2nd. time, 1st. content?).
Eric
   _    "just a Texan a long way from home"
 _| ~-. Eric Barber, BNR Europe Limited, London Road, Harlow, England CM17 9NA
 \, *_} AT&T/BT/etc. +44 279 403527/429531 x 3527, ESN (NT/BNR) 6 742 3527
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, BNR  | Eric.Barber@bnr.co.uk
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: may@Apple.COM (Patrick May)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Must states accept other states drivers licenses
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:16:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


     Must the state of California accept as valid a driver's license from
the state of Maine?

     I was pulled over for running a red light (it was actually yellow,
but thats another battle) in CA and handed the officer my Maine license.
He inquired how long I had been in the state and I replied "Not long."
He pressed for more information and I informed him that I had been in CA
for a few weeks.  He then wrote me up for not having a license.  Evidently
CA expects you to get a CA license within 10 days after entering the state.

     I have the following questions:

          - Must states accept as valid other states' licenses?
          - Did the officer act inappropriately by pressing me for
            information without informing me of my right against
            self-incrimination?  Being pulled over is inherently
            intimidating, I felt coerced to be as forthcoming as I
            was by the nature of the power relationship.
          - Is the ticket invalid because I did, in fact, have a
            license, albeit an out-of-state one?

     And just out of curiosity:
          - What are the odds of getting out of the running a red
            light ticket when it's just my word against the cop?
          - If I do get out of that ticket, does it invalidate the
            other charge since he pulled me over inappropriately?

Thanks,

Patrick May
may@apple.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Making law (was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station)
Organization: The Devil's Advocate
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:56:20 GMT

In <1993Jan22.024152.29134@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>Quick, tell me what "due process" means.


>proceedures which the government must follow, before taking away
>someone's life, liberty or property. From context, these proceedures
>protect the individual from arbitrary or unfair punishment.

Okay, now.  You're a judge.  I am a death row prisoner.  I argue to
you that the death penalty is arbitrary and unfair, since no other
first world country still uses it.  You agree, and rule the death
penalty to be a violation of the 5th amendment.  Are you making law?
And if you are in this case, please present an example which is more
obiviously and uncontroversially covered by the "due process clause."


 The 
>Amendment forbids the government from denying these protections,
>so no agency of the governemnt can decrease them. Therefore,
>"due process" is constrained to mean, "those legal proceedure protecting
>individuals from arbitrary or unfair punishment which were commonly
>practiced in the past." That isn't much of a definition, but you
>have to agree that even so vauge a phrase is, to some extent, 
>constrained.

By your definition, the due process clause means almost nothing, since
prior to the constitution, there was no due process in may areas.
That's why they passed the amendment.  Are you saying that the
amendment was a nullity?


>Currently, the commerce clause of Article One, Section Eight
>(perhaps the worst victim of modern interpertations), is 
>"interperted" to allow the federal government to regulate anything,
>in any way, so long as there is even the most infinitesimal 
>connection to interstate commerce (to the extent that _everything_
>falls into this catagory.) I can safely say this goes _far_
>beyond "adding detail and specificity to law."

You can only "safely" say that because you aren't obliged to provide
you own, uncontroversial defintion of what interstate commerce means.
And I doubt you can.  Can you?





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

Xref: sparky misc.legal:23051 alt.society.civil-liberty:7472 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1521
From: spencer@cats.ucsc.edu (Michael Spencer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Judicial Power = "Create" Law? Founders Said Yes.
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:06:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


Ted Frank makes the best case against "original intent" jurisprudence
that I have seen in a long time. But he doesn't really come to grips
with the problem that the alternative is that the Constitution
depends on the result of the last election.

Wnat to give it a try, Ted?


-- 

===========================================================================
Michael Spencer            |      2640 Borregas
spencer@cats.ucsc.edu      |      Aptos, CA   95003
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Who said ... (was Re: Please Do
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:26:04 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>P.s. who was it who said
>	"If You can't stand the heat..."


A baptist.

chus
pyotr

-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Nothing says loving like a bun in the oven.
EOF
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23462 talk.abortion:58371 talk.politics.misc:70248 talk.religion.misc:27740
From: bmcnulty@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU (BOB MCNULTY)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: li'l help please
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:23:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: charnel.1k6nf0INNs5r
Reply-To: bmcnulty@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: oavax.csuchico.edu





     I am looking for a little information about Arizona law as I live in 
California and am a biologist and not of the legal persuasion.  

     My grandmother is terminally ill with cancer and my mother has gone to
Arizona to be with her.  She (grandmother) is fully functional mentally and
in minor to no pain.  She does however need help as her ability to move
about and do common tasks (prepare dinner, go shopping etc.) has diminished
considerably.  My mother has been staying with her for a few months now and
my Grandmother had to be admitted to the hospital for one day to get oxygen
and a new prescription for pain medication.  She was released to go home
with oxygen therapy but my mother has noticed that she is "going down hill
fast."

     My mother has talked to some hospice organization and they have told
her that if she has to leave the house to go shopping or anything not to
tell anyone.  They said that if something happened to my Grandmother while
my mother was gone that my mother could be charged with willful neglect or
elder abuse or some such thing.  Is this possible?  My grandmother has been
diagnosed as terminal, the doctors are saying it could be days or weeks or
maybe months.  Is there some written agreement that my grandmother could
sign relieving my mother of "responsibility?"  I have told my mother to
seek advise from a local attorney but in the meantime she is afraid to
leave the house to go shopping or to the drugstore.


     Any information would be appreciated and not considered legal advice.



Thanks in advance!  





	My keyboard has been drinking....


				not me.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Subject: divorce assets questi
Reply-To: "hilary miller" <hilary.miller@execnet.com>
Organization: Executive Networks Information
Distribution: misc
Date: 21 Jan 93 07:23:41 EST


Craig Becker, in a message to All on 01-20-93 at 3:30am, said:

CB>|A friend of mine is getting a divorce and is going through the
   |(painful) process of splitting up the marital assets. Her husband
   |entered the marriage with 100 shares of stock in a company which
   |has, over the course of the marriage, split many times so that the
   |original 100 shares are now 800 shares.
   |This is happening in Texas, which is, I believe, a community
   |property state.
   |Here's the question: is she entitled to any portion of the 800
   |shares?
   |__________________________________________________________________

          As a general rule, stock splits are considered mere changes in
          form and do not constitute income to the party receiving the
          same.  To the extent that the original stock was separate proper-
          ty, future subdivisions of that stock during the marriage would
          not render it marital property.

          Standard Disclaimer: The above information is not to be construed
          as legal advice. Legal advice may not be given on a BBS, espe-
          cially one which crosses state and national boundaries, because
          the law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and because of
          concerns about unauthorized practice of law (a criminal viola-
          tion) in those jurisdictions in which the author is not licensed. 
          Proper legal advice can only be obtained from an attorney li-
          censed to practice in your jurisdiction who is competent in the
          specialized area of the law, whom you consult and hire, and who
          then assumes the obligation to protect your rights and explain
          your responsibilities.


   L A
 I    R        Hilary B. Miller of Greenwich, Connecticut
  H/\Y         CIS: 76040,1743
    
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #11645  Hell hath no fury like the lawyer of woman scorned
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Probate
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:30:35 GMT

In article <1jnehsINNrph@nic.umass.edu> PGSMITH@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU ( ) writes:
>     Can anyone give me a quick pointer to Net information on probate
> and possibility of avoiding.   Thanks   pgsmith@ucsvax.ucs.umass.edu

When one dies, someone files a will with the probate court in
the state and county where the deceased was domiciled.  If the will
names an executor, the executor probably files the will. If there's
no will, someone - usually a close relative -- applies to the court
to be apointed administrator of the estate.  Anyway, the court will
eventually appoint someone to be executor/administrator or the
estate, and will monitor the administration of the estate.  Most
papers filed with the court become a public record.

The courts of several states have a reputation for being very slow
and/or very nitpicky, and request lots of papers and bonds.  In many
cases the executor is a lawyer or asks a lawyer to help out.  While
some lawyers bill by the hour, many bill by value of the estate.

Many assets can be distributed without being monitored or approved
by the probate court.  These include joint tenancy accounts with
rights of survivorship, accounts "Payable on Death" or "In Trust
For"  (these just take a death certificate and, in some states, a
few more forms, but not a court order) and assets in certain trusts,
such as a living trust.

However, these assets could still be part of the estate for
inheritance tax purposes; avoiding probate of those assets does not
avoid the taxes.  And if the executor's agreement with the lawyer
is based on billing as a percentage of the estate, the lawyer's fees
will be roughly the same.

In any case, even if virtually all assets are non-probateable,
everyone should still have a will for many reasons, and that will
should be probated.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,alt.dads-rights,soc.women
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Still Light On History????
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:05:39 GMT

In article <1734@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	Look, medical science is more advanced than it was in 1972,
Yes.

>and if nothing else, the abortion debate has heightened the public's
>awareness of how the fetus develops - that is, what features develop
>when.
Ok.

>So you can make the argument that not only is the fetus nonviable
>(that is, unable to sustain itself outside the mother's body), but that
>the fetus does not have enough "human" characteristics to have human
>rights. Such a claim is just plain false by the 5th month of pregnancy,
I disagree completely. Intelligence is the characteristic that
I value in persons and 5th month fetuses don't have it.

>and the closer you get to the 5th month, the more "human" the fetus
>becomes.
Ok, but that doesn't make it a person. (I use the term
intentionally).


>I do not know of a single "pro-choice" individual or group that
>is seriously dealing with this issue.
Well, sir, perhaps if you pulled your head out of your ass, you
would see some of them.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23293 talk.abortion:57956 talk.politics.misc:69779
From: rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Judges "making" law [was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)]
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:59:53 GMT
	<RJC.93Jan20140137@devo.unify.com>
	<1jllbnINNm2t@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California

In article <1jllbnINNm2t@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
   When Jose Canseco hits a baseball out of the park, do you say he hit a   
   home run, or do you wait until he rounds the bases and the umpire signals
   the run before you classify it as a run?

What league would score it as a run if he wacked it out of the park
and then walked straight back to the dugout?


--
Ronald Cole           +----------------------+  internet: rjc@unify.com
Software Engineer II  |    Lord/Genis '96    |  uucp:     uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation     +----------------------+  voice:    +1 916 928 6238
          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Name Changes
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:21:37 GMT


In article <1993Jan25.201924.24423@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, 
phd1667@ultb.isc.rit.edu (P.H. Dixon) said:

> I'm curious if anyone could tell me the procedure to have a name
> changed? I'm interested in adding another "first name," and wonder if
> it's possible to do it without involving a lawyer... The lawyer I
> spoke to, told me that it would be approx. $500.. in New York State.

In Massachusetts, no lawyer involvement is needed and it costs $60.00
(plus another $10.00 if you want a nice, notarized-and-sealed copy of
the court decree, which you probably do), plus a couple of trips to the
local courthouse.

Based on the likely (but far from certain) assumption that the
procedures are similar in New York, I'd advise you to call or go to the
general courthouse for the political district in which you live.  (In
Mass., the state is legally divided up into counties; it's probably the
same in NY.)  Look for the Office of the Clerk for Family, Probate, Etc.
Court, or, if none exists, the office of the Civil Court Clerk.
Somebody there should be able to tell you the procedure or at least give
you a good pointer to someone who can help you.

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