HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:58:05 GMT

In article <Bvt1s6.n6@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
|> "Finality" is also somewhat misapplied.  It has very often been the case
|> that legislatures respond to judicial findings of unconstitutionality by
|> changing their laws in ways that preserve their purpose, but avoid their
|> flaws.  As an example, 35 states reacted to the effective abolition of
|> the death penalty (via Furman v. Georgia) with new laws that were
|> later viewed (in dicta in Gregg v. Georgia) as successful and proper
|> legislative response; the death penalty was restored, despite the finality
|> of Furman.

Or more likely is that there never was any flaw in their laws.  The states 
repassed the death penalty and a different Supreme Court accepted them.
How did the membership change between Furman and Gregg?
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [alt.society.civil-liberty] Re: Civil Rights Are Absolute
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:19:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.160255.16902@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Actually, an individual has no rights except those granted by
>the state.  An individual cannot even sue the state unless the
>state gives him that right.  Causes of action are granted through
>the state.  You say you have common law rights?  You do only 
>because all states except Louisiana have adopted the common
>law as part of their system of laws.

This is a vast misconception, and starts from an entirely incorrect
idea of government: Governemnts are created by the people, and
teh people give up _some_ of their rights, to empower the 
government. Or, to quote a archaic, radical political tract,

"...to secure these [unalienable] Rights, Governments are established
among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it..."

>The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution because of that
>basic fact (that the individual otherwise has no rights).  They
>were intended to be absolute.

The protected rights were intended to be absolute, but the reason
for the Bill of Rights is completely different. In fact, the
Federalists opposed a bill of rights for exactly this reason: People
might misunderstand, and think that the people retained _only_
those rights listed. Anti-federalists objected, saying that a few
of the people's rights should be put into writing, so no future
misinterpertation of the government's powers could permit their
violation. You might want to read the Ninth Amendment: "The
ennumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

>Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
>metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!

What, exactly, do you think Thomas and Renquist (and Souter, O'Conner,
Kennedy, and Scalia) have done? The attitude of the Court, that
the Bill of Rights is limited and the federal government has almost
unlimited powers, is the result of _liberal_, _Democratic_ Justices,
starting with Roosevelt's appointees. (Consider the doctorine of
"prefered freedoms" which honors some rights, at the expense of 
ignoring others, which rights being at the whim of the Justices; or
the interpertation of the Commerce clause, which allows the governemnt
to do anything providing some, vauge link to commerce can be made.)

The Renquist Court is only using the same, vague, biased principles
the Court has applied for the past 50 years. However, they are
have a different bias. Perhaps you should have objected, when the
Court was abusing it's powers to promote _your_ agenda. (Since
such powers are unsafe and should not be allowed.)

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Where Did "...beyond a reasonable doubt" Come From?
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:15:50 GMT

I can't find the phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt" in my copy of the U.S. Constitution. Where did  it
come from?
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:36:05 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>Specifically, another poster had argued that the Supreme Court's
>"finality" was illegitimate in some way because the Constitution does not
>explicitly grant the Court that interpretive authority.

"Finality" is also somewhat misapplied.  It has very often been the case
that legislatures respond to judicial findings of unconstitutionality by
changing their laws in ways that preserve their purpose, but avoid their
flaws.  As an example, 35 states reacted to the effective abolition of
the death penalty (via Furman v. Georgia) with new laws that were
later viewed (in dicta in Gregg v. Georgia) as successful and proper
legislative response; the death penalty was restored, despite the finality
of Furman.

The Supreme Court does not get the last word, because in a system of
co-equal branches (or of dual federalism) there is no last word.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:36:11 GMT

In article <14kd02pp25ho01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>
>I think Jyrki's point is well taken.  The Constitutional clause to which Mike 
>alludes is to establish jurisdiction, not to establish any exclusivity of 
>power of interretation of the Constitution.

Nor did I say it did, by the way. The point I made was much subtler.
Specifically, another poster had argued that the Supreme Court's
"finality" was illegitimate in some way because the Constitution does not
explicitly grant the Court that interpretive authority.

My point was that, by the same reasoning, it would be a mistake to argue
that the other two branches are co-equal in interpretive authority, since
only the judicial branch is given any authority to interpret the
Constitution at all.

In other words, Terry, I wasn't saying that Article III grants the Supreme
Court exclusive interpretive authority--I was simply criticizing (via
reductio ad absurdum) a line of reasoning that says the Court's authority
in that area is illegitimate.



--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: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP?
From: nenglish@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:21:33 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

Hi!
I need to know:   Am I crazy??
;^)

Fri. night, 10/09/92, 7pm, on CNN news, 20 min. Lead Story:

DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP

Complete story w/ tapes, transcripts, and witness;
Tapes and evidence pointed straight up to the Justice Dept. and James Baker;
Tapes were gotten by CNN thru the Freedom of Information Act.

Am *I* the only person who saw this story??
I have not heard a PEEP about it since it aired!

Has anyone seen this or heard anything about besides ME??

Nicole....

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Proposed: A netnews constitutional convention
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:01:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.152424.11439@hemlock.cray.com> jsy@media04.cray.com (Jeff Young) writes:
>I would like to set up a group (probably not more than 15 or 20 people) to 
>start hammering out a new US constitution.  This is obviously just an exercise
>to determine what we think is important today vs. 200+ years ago.  (Some examples
>of things which are not important are the 3rd admendment and the 10th admendment.)

What do you mean the Tenth Amendment isn't important: The idea that the
government has _only_ those powers granted to it, and that all 
others are reserved, is _extremely_ important. (Although the Court
hasn't enforced it much...)

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: U.S. v. Yale Todd & Marbury v. Madison -- parallels?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:05:23 GMT


In article <4bwo02H725tV01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) said:

> > They invoked it, but Marbury was the first time they overturned a
> > federal law and claimed the rest of government was bound by their
> > ruling (e.g. that they had the final say in the matter.)

> Nope.  See United States v. Yale Todd, 13 How. 52 (Feb. 17, 1794).
> "[T]he power to be proposed to be conferred on the Circuit Courts of
> the United States by the [U.S. Congressional] act of 1972 [1 Stat.
> 243] was not judicial power within the meaning of the Constitution,
> and was, therefore, unconstitutional, and could not lawfully be
> exercised by the courts."

Interesting...  Back when I studied _Marbury_ for the first time, I
was a bit amused to note that, when you got right down to it, Chief
Justice Marshall was simultaneously enshrining a doctrine that gave
the federal judiciary a huge amount of power (that is, the doctrine of
judicial review) and issuing a narrow ruling which _limited_ the
court's power.  (For those of you who never quite followed all the
twists and turns of _Marbury v. Madison_, Marshall had the Supreme
Court use its arguably self-granted power of judicial review to rule
that Congressional legislation which granted the judiciary a certain
technical power was unconstitutional and that therefore the Supreme
Court lacked that power... and that since this was the power that
plaintiff Marbury had petitioned the court to exercise, he lost.)

Now, reading the excerpt from _U.S. v. Yale Todd_ that Terry posted, I
see that a case that might be seen as a precursor to _Marbury_ had
some very similar properties.  I have to wonder whether this was all
coincidence or whether there was a feeling among the first Justices
that they could make the idea of judicial review more palatable to the
Legislative and Executive branches if they, at first, exercised it
only to [modestly] trim the powers of the Judicial branch...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:41:40 GMT

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.165438.5726@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU 
>(Frank Crary) writes:
>> They invoked it, but Marbury was the first time they overturned a 
>> federal law and claimed the rest of government was bound by their

>Nope.  See United States v. Yale Todd, 13 How. 52 (Feb. 17, 1794).  "[T]he 
>power to be proposed to be conferred on the Circuit Courts of the United 
             ^^^^^^^^

This would appear to have been dictum.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [misc.legal] Interstate commerce (was Re: Carjacking as a federal offense)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:20:40 GMT

A repost from misc.legal:

From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:28:18 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <05CS03brabyx00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James 
> 
> Wow, I knew that Congress liked to abuse the commerce clause, but doesn't
> this set a rather sweeping precedent?  I mean, given that almost anything
> that one can buy these days "has been transported, shipped, or received in
> interstate or foreign commerce", Congress could make virtually all theft
> a federal crime, couldn't they?  For that matter, they could gather under
> federal jurisdiction any crime that involves a "transported" object.  Am
> I the only one who finds this scary?  (I know, it's just another step in
> the ongoing erosion of the power of the individual states, but this just 
> seems so blatant.)

Nah, the sweeping precedent was when they said that a farmer who grew wheat 
for consumption on the same farm on which he was growing it could be 
regulated in the name of interstate commerce, because if he was growing his 
own, he wasn't buying it, and that affected interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce is not a doctrine it's a mantra which, when applied to 
any federal law, makes it constitutional.

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.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP?
Organization: The World
	<BvxusF.4wC@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 07:39:33 GMT


There's also a long and informative article on the topic in the past
week's New Yorker.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Not that kind! Re: 3 Branches of Government: Is it time for a change?
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.021722.151211@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>There is a lot of talk in the press and by politicans that one of
>the major problems with our government today is that very little
>gets done.

>It seems to me that one way to eliminate the "gridlock" in 
>Washington is to adopt the "Parliamentary" form of government
>that Britain uses.  In this way, the people vote for a party
>and the party chooses the Prime Minister.

Another way would be to enforce the US Constitution and remove the
myriad of issues from the federal level to "the states, respectively
or to the people."

It should come as no surprise that the more people involved in a decision,
the less likely is an agreement on a course of action. For example, there
is a heated debate, today, regarding socialized health care in the US. Why
not simply let individual states decide? New York might enact such a
program while Arizona probably would not. Then, people who wanted socialized
health care could move to New York while those who do not could move to
Arizona.

Of course, this presupposes that it is gridlock and not simply normal
politician greed for power which is behind the complaints about
divided government. Proposing the UK as a model for the US to follow is
pretty scary given the decline of that once great nation.

It is time for a change; it is time to restore the Tenth Amendment and to
liberate America from the Washington Party.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:17:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.024213.17713@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.045307.10211@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                    writes...
>>In article <1992Oct13.015416.331@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN) writes:
>I guess I DO have to explain the ramifications. The only power the people
>have over an elected official on a federal level (ie. no recall vote)
>other than revolt IS the election. By putting the election of the 
>president in the hands of a few, and out of the hands of the people,
>you ARE making the president answerable to only the electoral college.
>(ie. just becuase the people exist, does not make the president 
>answerable to them. Take the example of any elected dictator)

Hmmm.  The purposes of the Electoral College, as I see them, are
twofold.  First, the impact of smaller states is increased by the extra
two electors per State.  I was just discussing this with a friend from
Kansas, and he mentioned it on his own, with no prompting.  People in
small states _are_ aware of this.  Second, removing the election from
the direct hands of the people is a step away from mob rule (direct
democracy).  Our founding fathers were very concerned about the effect
of democracy, and took pains to ensure that we would be a Republic
instead.  

Ultimately, the power of the electoral college derives from the people.
The people elect them to make a single decision for them, in much the
same way as we elect Congress to make too many decisions for us.  The
decisions are still our responsibility, and the electors are responsible
to us.  If we don't trust them to make a good decision (the one we want)
then they would never be elected.  This is only true if the electors
have faces, however.

In my opinion, the Electoral College must be reformed or eliminated.  I
am against a direct vote, so I must be for reform.  

/Roger 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:15:52 GMT

A repost from misc.legal:

From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:30:28 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct12.154231.8705@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu 
(William December Starr) writes:
> I'm just wondering if anyone knows what excuse the Congress
> used for having the federal government move into this area.  Did they
> rule that since some of the atoms that comprise a hijacked automobile
> have probably crossed state lines sometime in the past, the Interstate
> Commerce Clause granted federal authority in this area, or what?

I was wondering the same thing.  Here's the proposed addition to Title 18:

"2119.  Carjacking
  "(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes or
attempts to take a motor vehicle, that has been transported, shipped, or
received in interstate or foreign commerce, from the person or presence
of another,  shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than
15 years, or both."

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.usa.constitution,alt.individualism,alt.politics.civil-liberty
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: Electoral College (was Re: Election of Judges)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:03:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.195015.25499@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>Just that the district approach essentially erases State boundaries which
>I think are significant in terms of the intentions of the Founders as well
>as the political orientation of the people within a State.  Certainly we
>are not an amorphous mass of voters, we vary greatly between states.

In the original proposal I made, two electors per state would be elected
as Senators are...Statewide.  I fail to see why if it is good enough for
the Congress, it isn't good enough for the Electoral College.

Oh, if we are discussing changing the Constitution, then we are
deliberately changing the Constitution in a way that they could not
foresee.  They intended to give us this power, by including the
amendment process.

>Candidates must concentrate on entire States in order to win and I 
>submit that this is a good thing.  It forces the candidate to appeal to
>people from both urban and rural areas which results in moderate candidates.
>Your proposal would allow fringe candidates to enter the race with 
>reasonable chances to win AND it would create an environment favorable
>to multi-parties.  I see below that you favor the latter but I do not.

I too prefer moderate candidates.  I also think that multiple parties
are reasonable.  In my proposal I also provided that the Electoral
College would meet in Washington to elect the President.  In this
meeting, the electors could vote as often as necessary to elect a
President with a majority.  In the event of true gridlock (after a week
of meeting) the election would be thrown into the house.

>I can imagine two scenarios right now.  One candidate concentrates on
>urban areas (likely to be a liberal then) and another candidate 
>concentrates on white christian strongholds.  In either case the winner
>would be a fringe candidate and I find that to be unnecessary.  What you
>are talking about is Constitutional heresy.

Hmmm.  And when the actual election takes place, neither "fringe"
candidate gets elected, and a moderate is chosen that several groups can
agree on.  This is not heresy.

/Roger
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.individualism,alt.politics.civil-liberty