HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@dante.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: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:45:58 GMT

davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:


>  People seem to have a hard time accepting that the right of free
>speech does not guarantee access to listeners.
[...]

I haven't noticed people having any problem accepting this.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Demonstrations
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:55:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.212404.3356@leland.Stanford.EDU>, yergeau@leland (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>Freedom to *peaceably* assemble is not being denied by requiring a permit.
>
>It merely allows the local government to evaluate a demonstration to 
>determine if it is likely that it will become violent.

And, if they determine that violence will occur, what then?

I "remember" that the Supremes have addressed a similar question,
namely whether the size of the bond could depend on the expected
response to the demonstration.  I "remember" that the Supremes
rejected the "heckler's veto", that the state was responsible for
costs associated with counter-demonstrations.  (In other words, govt
can't require folks to pay for the responses to their speech.)

That seems reasonable, but I don't know whether or not things actually
work out that way.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church & State
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:08:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.205232.29109@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>Separation of church and state is NOT a right(?).  The separation of
>church and state is a mechanism to preserve the right (though not
>specifically enumerated) of freedom of religion for individuals.

The requiring the seperation of church and state is a very questionable
thing for the Court to do: The role of the judiciary is to apply
the law (including the Constitution) to specific cases. The Court
should overturn any law that is shown to violate a right, but
establishing mechanisms to protect rights is equivilent to passing a
law. This is the role of the legislature, not the Court. The only
exception I could see, is if this were the _only_ mechanism to 
protect that right. (I.e. if it could be demonstrated that _any_
non-seperation of church and state inherently violated freedom of
religion.) Based on your logic, I'd say seperation of church and
state was a valid legal concept _only_ in cases where an individual's
rights were violated, but not as a general rule.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

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: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:21:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.212404.3356@leland.Stanford.EDU> yergeau@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>Freedom to *peaceably* assemble is not being denied by requiring a permit.
>It merely allows the local government to evaluate a demonstration to 
>determine if it is likely that it will become violent....
 
Local governments have refused permits for other reasons...

> Rights are not absolutes.  They
>are in effect only to the point where they conflict with other rights.

...but this was to protect other rights of others. (Even a peacefull
demonstration can infringe on other's rights: Try getting a permit 
to peacefully demonstrate across all eight lanes of I-70.) 

But I agree the rights are not absolute: That was my entire point.
The Bill of Rights absolutely provents _federal_ infringement
of many rights, but does not restrict the states. The Fourteenth
Amendment extends that protection to state laws, but not absolutely
(the states can still regulate to handle conflicts between individual's
rights, for example.)

                                                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: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:39:14 GMT

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

>There seems to be some confusion here: The Bill of Rights protects
>individual right from infringment _by_the_governemnt_. It says
>absolutely nothing about infringment by private citizens. (There
>are a number of statutory laws on this subject, but they aren't
>part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.)

Yes, the only Amendment that addresses infringement by private
citizens is the 13th:

========= ftp.eff.org:pub/civics/constitution.us ============
   Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction.
   Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

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

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Seperation of Church & State
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:34:25 GMT

>In article <1992Sep9.230526.1014@qualcomm.com> Qualcomm.Com. (DROBINSON @QUALCOMM.COM) writes:
>   I need some information please. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
>   Is the term "seperation of church and state" found in the Constitution of the
>   United States? Please advise as to where it is found!

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.)

The Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from "abridg[ing] the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This is
generally assumed to include the rights refered to in the Bill of
Rights. It isn't at all clear that the seperation of church and
state is such a "right." I believe the framers of the Fourteenth 
Amendment were thinking more in terms of freedom of speach, press
assembly, the rights to due process, keep arms, etc... That is, 
those that southern states were restricting with respect to freed slaves.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: [alt.activism et al] Feedback to the Bill of Rights status report
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:07:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.221345.1001@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI
(Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

> A repost from alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan:
> 
> From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
> Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
> Message-ID: <1wwn3dg.adamsr@netcom.com>
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 18:20:09 GMT
> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
>
> [...]
> 
> 	One problem which had been an obstacle for both the anti WoD and the
> anti WoG groups has been the adament position taken by the majority of the
> pro-gun groups that the WoD is fair, that those who have nothing to hide
> should not care about being searched, etc. This was typical of the messages

You're apparently talking to the wrong folks.  Post this question over
to talk.politics.guns and see what the response is.  I am against the
governments' (both Feds and States) War on the People.  It's not limited
to the WoD, WoG....  As I recall, the Feds had to pass an Amendment
to the Constitution, before they could ban the sale of alcohol, so
what legal power do they have to ban drugs?.... [hint: It's not an
_enumerated_ power, so it must be unConstitutional].

> 	Clearly this is a problem. The pro-gun advocates feel they are
> fighting a losing battle to protect their rights against government
> encrochment, while simultaneously alienating those who feel that other

Hey!  Don't lump us all together like that!

> 	What is needed is a coalition position which supports the
> restoration of ALL rights. A united front by the right wing gun advocates
> and the left wing (and right, since many are there as well) anti WoD
> advocates might actually do SOMETHING to restore a bit of personal freedom
> in this country. 

You mean a group who believes in personal freedoms, like the Founding
Fathers?  How UnAmerican...  =;->

-- 
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Civics Classes for Law Enforcement Offici
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:48:25 GMT

In article <BuE06K.AL0@wrs.com> gak@wrs.com writes:
>Maybe not...I guess what Article VI is saying is "if it's in the US
>Constitution, it's the law", and what Amendment X is saying is "if it's
>not in the US Constitution, it's up to the States".  Two different things.

More precisely, "if it's in the US Constitution, or in a law passed
by Congress (within their stated, constitutional authority) or in
a treaty (adopted by constitutionally stated process), it's the law."


                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Separation of church and state
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:33:27 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department



     The references from _Visions of Liberty_ by Ira Glasser have been
interesting, to be sure, but I wonder to what extent the discussions of
separation of church and state reflect the author's preferences rather
than the intent of the original legislators.  Thus, I have seen statements
from Glasser, Madison, and Jefferson which tend toward more strict 
separation on any level government, but I am personally more intersted
in what the legislators who enacted it thought.  It's true that Madison
wrote the Bill of Rights, but the question of original intent has to be
settled with the _legislatures_, I think, because under our government
they have the power to enact laws.  Jefferson's opinion is important, 
but in regard to this issue, it is still that of a private citizen only.

    On a historical point, it may be that all of the states had 
disestablished their religions by 1791.  But that obscures the point I
tried to make earlier.  The point is, under the (original intent of the)
Constitution, states may disestablish religion.  They are not required
to do so.  Church and State is a state, not a federal, issue.  So, even
if all the states had disestablished religions by time the Bill of Rights
came along, they nevertheless retained the prerogative of legislating in
this area, at least according to the 10th Amendment.

    In regard to the 14th Amendment, the language is so broad that the
original intent may be beyond clear determination from pertinent texts,
such as debates and proceedings.  If that is so, it seems to me the next
best thing to do in determining what they meant by it is to see what they
did, what kinds of laws they proposed, speeches they made, and so on.  If
there were a big push in the 1870's or 1880's to sunder religion and state,
then there'd be a good basis for saying they meant the amendment to do
this.  Or if we had legislators of the time even expressing their regret
at not getting around to separating church and state, intent in the
amendment could be reasonably inferred.  It just seems to me that 
amendments are either done to correct things (like the 27th) or to 
enable some level of government to do things (like the 16th), and the
ensuing actions of the proponents help to determine what the intent is.
So, I'm personally leary about using the 14th Amendment in church-state
issues. 



John Rickert
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:50:58 GMT

In article <BtJwFt.B95@acsu.buffalo.edu> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.054118.8801@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.011808.28127@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>>>
>>>This is backed up by the fact that all 4 Supreme Court decisions concerning
>>>RKBA have treated it as an individual right, not a collective right.  
>>
>>You mistate the question. It's not "is the RKBA an individual or collective
>>right?". Rather, it's "what individuals (as opposed to the government) have
>>this right?".IMO, the answer is clearly "those in the well-regulated militia".
>
>Read up on "militia" in the US Code.  Well-regulated is not determined
>by the government.

Who do you think WROTE the US Code, moron?

Your second sentence contradicts your first. Stop wasting my time.

								- Kevin
From: bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: HOW TO ANSWER (was Re: Anyone know what Clinton's.......)
Date: 5 Sep 92 22:49:31 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Relevant position papers can easily be sent to you automatically.  Just
write to the Clinton-Gore Autoserver <clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org>,
with a subject line of 'help'.  You will then receive instructions on
how to use the autoserver.

At this point in time there are position papers on the following
subjects available:

Agriculture		Aids			Arms-Control	
Arts			Campaign-Finance	Children	
Cities			Civil-Rights		Corporate-Responsibility

Crime-Drugs		Democracy		Defense-Conversion	
Disabilities		Education		Elderly		
Energy			Environment		Family		
Foreign-Policy		Gun-Control		Gay-Lesbian-Rights

Health-Care		Housing			Immigration		
Israel			Labor			Middle-East		
National-Security	Rebuilding-America	Science
Small-Buisness		Space			Veterans
Women			Work 			Yugoslavia		

Happy reading,

-bert smith
Volunteer Clinton/Gore Email Team
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Just to keep things straight . . .
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:54:47 GMT

In article <CHRISF.92Sep12154107@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:

>>   >>   Clinton's plan promises a quarter trillion $$ is deficit reduction and
>>   >>   new spending.

>>   >>   $250 billion - $20 billion = $230 billion.

>I have yet to see where the number $230 billion came from; if someone's got a
>reference, please respond to this.

See above. Clinton is promising to cut the deficit in half (about $150B)
plus another $100 B a year in new spending. Subtract from that total the
results of his tax proposals and you get $230 B.

>I think we have lost the perspective of money and TIME here (no, not the mag);
>Clinton's plan, according to what I heard Bush a few weeks ago, called 
>for $230 billion. [over five years].

I have been hearing $100 B per year in new spending from most independant
sources. If you prefer Bush, just subtract $50 B. The problem remains.

>didn't list any money that might be saved by proposed military cuts (who said 
>all the money would come from one place?).

Not I. I simply wonder where the $230 Billion will come from. Military
cuts won't raise anywhere near that kind of money. 

>I disagree with your method of calculating how much taxing the top 2-3% will
>raise; using a figure for the top 4% and then subtracting can result in a big
>difference (it may be in your favor!).

Using the top 4% will give a figure of $20 billion (which I used). However,
this raises taxes for families making more than $90,000/year and also
breaks Clinton's promise to limit increases to the top 2%.

>He did arithmetic for Clinton's proposed tax increase for one year with
>spending over five years.  

No, I used anual numbers. 

>He also only used one revenue source.

True. However, Clinton seems to be implying that soaking the rich is
a painless way to pay for his programs. The facts indicate otherwise.

If you care to outline where the other $230 billion comes from, I
would like to see it. My posting was intended to raise questions, not
answer them.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------222 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4455 alt.news-media:1157 talk.politics.misc:44266
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:39:58
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<Bu9LIw.Koq@apollo.hp.com> <EefHiK_00iUx88_Ih4@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 8 Sep 92 23:47:34 GMT

In article <EefHiK_00iUx88_Ih4@andrew.cmu.edu> mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael J. Keating) writes:

> Objective reporting is absolutely essential.  We have more than enough
> opporunities to hear and read interpretations of actors, fictional
> characters, commentators, politicians and a multitude of other speakers
> whom, come election year, are suddenly the most politically adept people
> they have ever met.  At a time like this, when we have to choose between
> the lesser of two evils, and so much mud is being slung, we have to know
> the basic facts!

This goal, however, is incompatible with "objective" reporting, at
least as objectivity is understood by American journalists.
"Objectivity" is essentially a mechanical process: you report what
people have to say, and you report both sides---that is, you print
quotes from people on opposing sides.  You make sure that whatever you
print is balanced.

Getting to the basic facts is an entirely different matter; that means
analyzing what is said, and making an evaluation, and sticking to it.
It means that if, for example, George Bush says something that is a
particularly egregious lie, you say so and you explain why it is a
lie---something that modern "objective" newspapers would never do.

Something much preferable to "objectivity" is a newspaper that has
opinions and isn't afraid to tell you publicly what they are.  If you
read a few papers like that (preferably ones with differing view),
you'll be far better nourished intellectually than if you stick to a
uniform diet of "objective" gruel.

(I, incidentally, believe that there are very strong systemic biases
in the news that is presented by the mass media.  I also believe that
journalists take their professional objectivity very seriously.  The
biases are not due to the personal beliefs of the journalists, but to
the way that the structures of journalism are set up.)
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:22:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.205327.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.223548.20021@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> A little chart in this Sunday's NYT:
>> 
>> Change in private sector employment by Presidential term:
>> 
>> Carter:	+13.92%
>> Reagan 1:	+ 7.30%
>> Reagan 2:	+12.05%
>> Bush:		- 0.04%
>> 
>> --
>
>     Based on this chart, we must have been living in Utopia during
>the Carter years.  I sure wish that someone would have invited me to
>that quadrennial jubilee.

Thats the derivative of the jobs functions :-)

The curve looks something like:
     /--
    /     
  -/
 /
/
1 2 3 4 

The employment was worse at 1 even though the increase was fastest.
However this would seem to indicate that Carter did a better job
of creating jobs (assuming presidents have any control over that at all).

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4356 alt.news-media:1144 talk.politics.misc:44135
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:56:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <mjenkins.715806391@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>No, I think its quite obvious from watching much of the network
>reporting, the Emmys, and the state of the US in general. I don't
>think its any kind of organized conspiracy to support Clinton, but its
>just the natural biases of the people making the decisions.

  I agree.  I don't understand why some people seem to have a problem
  with journalists, editors, and newspapers and TV stations having
  opinions which are expressed in their reporting.   The idea of 
  "objective journalism" is naive nonsense anyway and we should all
  grow up and stop demanding or expecting it.

  I would also raise this issue (although I want to make it very clear
  that I don't think it applies to the current race as I think Clinton
  is as abad as Bush):  What if one candidate *really is* much worse than
  the other in terms of his record, character, or whatever?  Should 
  journalists still feel compelled to provide "balance"?   "Objective"
  reporting of such a race would result in far more negative references
  to the bad guy.  Anything wrong with that?


---peter
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4581 alt.rush-limbaugh:4438