HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:00:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.052607.2097@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> molin@crs.cl.msu.edu (Michael Olin) writes:
>I can't believe there is ANYONE with a modicum of sense in the cranial
>region who would ADVOCATE the use of the electoral college under ANY
>circumstances...

I think the direct election of the President would be a _very_ bad thing
(or _is_ a very bad thing, since the current implimentation of the
electoral college might as well be a direct election.) It propmtes lying
politicians, trying to mislead the voters. The votes for President should
be cast by people who have the time to consider the candidates positions
and records on improtant issues (as opposed to 30 second "sound bites"),
but who at the same time represent the desires of the people at large.

(Or, if you want to get into personal attacks) I can't believe there
is ANYONE with a modicum of sense in the cranial region who would
ADVOCATE mob-rule direct democracy under ANY circumstance.

The only major complaint I have with the suggestion is the absence
of a requirement for secret balloting of the electoral college. This
would remove a great deal of the pressure to vote along party lines,
etc...

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:524 misc.legal:18101
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Subject: US Judicial Review (was: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:21:17 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <BvMMqy.7uD@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) 
writes:
> That is not what we are taught.  We are taught that since Marbury v.
> Madison, the other two branches have grudgingly accepted the role
> of the judiciary as reviewer of constitutionalily. 

Judicial review of statutes for constitutionality in the United States 
predates Marbury by about a decade.


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
From: capn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Steve Thurston)
Subject: Re: The Courts and "De Facto Law" (was Re: Separation of Church & State)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:08:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.215951.17718@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>
>"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
> be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
> Miranda vs. Arizona

(And several other good examples...)

>Gee, I don't think I could say it any better... ;-)

I know that I couldn't have.  BUT....  This doesn't really solve the problem.
What if a legislature DOES pass an unconstitutional law?  It seems likely
that it will be enforced up until the time it is declared unconstitutional.
So, it would still seem that, until actually nullified, an unconstitutional
law is still a law.  The only question is what can be done about it.  I assume
all those decisions you quoted were leading to something... perhaps an answer
to that question?  (By "done about it" I mean, does the "victim" of the law
have rights to compensation?)

-- 
Steve Thurston
capn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu   ...or...   capn@PURCCVM.cc.purdue.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The Third Branch (LONG)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:46:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.145000.13651@toontown.uucp> ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:
>I think you underestimate the opinions of the public.  I think the President
>and Congress would be hard pressed to just publicly ignore the opinions
>of the court.  We've been raised with the idea that ours is a constitutional
>democracy based on a trialateral balance of powers.  For the President and
>Congress to ignore the court would be essentially to say that the courts
>don't matter.  If the public perceives them as saying that, then what's
>to say that they might just ignore other parts of the Constitution just as
>well?

They couldn't simply refuse or ignore a Supreme Court ruling, but what 
if they offered a reasonable opinion, that the Court was misinterperting
the Constitution? 

                                                       Frank Crary
                                                       CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:57:12 GMT

>>The phrase "same rates" is very important.  _ALL_ publications and broad-
>>cast media are required to have posted rates.  They are REQUIRED to charge
>>everyone the same rate.  No matter what!

I don't think this is correct: ABC, NBC, CBS and all of their local
affiliates refuse to run ads from the NRA, even at regular commercial
rates.

Also, I heard that one of Perot's reasons for entering the Presidential
race, was to force television stations to broadcast his campaign ads...

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Re: Electoral College 
Organization: VTT
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:22:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.225806.16150@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.170643.6293@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>>Thus, a state with less than 1/454'th
>>of the population still gets 3/454 votes.  

>The total number of electors is 535:  435 House districts, 
>plus two per state, plus 3 for DC.

Which makes it 538 electors.  That is why 270 electoral votes are needed
to elect a president.

>bam@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)         BAM    [My opinions belong to me only,

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
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: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:57:51 GMT

demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.) writes:

>The phrase "same rates" is very important.  _ALL_ publications and broad-
>cast media are required to have posted rates.  They are REQUIRED to charge
>everyone the same rate.  No matter what!

cmk>Are you sure about publications? I know that the FCC has all sorts of
cmk>controls on broadcasters, but I don't think there are similar controls
cmk>on publishers.

>Yes, I'm certain.
>My mother has been the editor of both a weekly newspaper and a monthly
>professional journal (shipping industry).  In both cases, I often heard
>her ranting and raving about the "lies" (I put that in quotes since that's
>what she said and I'm not qualified to judge) that advertisers were 
>printing.
[...]

I'm certain you're wrong. I'm especially certain that a publications
are not required by law to take all ads. So, we are at an impasse. Can
you find a reference to the law or regulations (postal)?

I remember that many newspapers refused to run the "Let's Debate The
Holocaust" ads.

- 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: TEST (don't read)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:55:22 GMT

>>|> just testing.
>
>>Does this individual have a constitutional right to test? Could this be
>>a ninth amendment right, held by the people, but not explicitly enumerated
>>in the constitution?
>
>All postings to usenet require access to a connected computer. The
>right to post, or the requirement not to post, a message would be
>governed by the contract law between the user and owner of that
>computer and between the various computer owners that compose
>usenet, _not_ by the Bill of Rights.

I disagree.  There is no such contract between the users or owners of
the computers that form Usenet.  At some places there are some such
contracts, but there's little overlap.

I thnk for those who are part of Usenet there is a right to post.  But
one can also sign that right away by a contract.  Also, as witnessed
by the many megabytes of "what is usenet" flame wars, it is difficult
to define the scope of the right - but similar difficulty exists with
other rights.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kayaalp@seas.smu.edu (Mehmet M. Kayaalp MD)
Subject: Is asking one's religious preference forcefully constitutional?
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Science
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 06:08:48 GMT

I am wondering whether the USA constitution protects people's privacy
in terms of religious belief or not. I've seen that in the registration 
form of my University (SMU at Dallas Texas) the religious preference is 
questioned without any "not available" option. 

I am not a US citizen, and do not know US constitution at all. However, 
I guess the privacy in terms of beliefs and thoughts should be 
protected in a country where the phrase ,"this is a free country," is 
pronounced so frequently. In many places of Europe, you cannot question 
that even ordinary people. I really am surprised that it is asked 
university students without any hesitance.

I would appreciate your comments. 

Best regards,

mehmet
-- 
Mehmet M. Kayaalp, M.D.         phone  : (214)692-2209
Computer Science Department     voice  : (214)706-5982
Southern Methodist University   fax    : (214)692-3085
Dallas, Texas 75275-4191        E-mail : kayaalp@seas.smu.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:30:00 GMT


In article <1OCT199200292230@zeus.tamu.edu>, demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.) writes...
>In article <1992Sep29.235751.4900@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes...
>>demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.) writes:
>>I'm certain you're wrong. I'm especially certain that a publications
>>are not required by law to take all ads. So, we are at an impasse. Can
>>you find a reference to the law or regulations (postal)?
>>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

OK, I haven't had time to check on this, but I don't think I am going to.
My account is running out of money and usenet is very expensive here at
A&M.  Unfortunately, I'm actually using my account for classes and need
my CPU and memory quotas for other things.
Now that I've thought about it, I think Carl may be right, and that it's
just a policy of reputable publications to publish dissenting views, not
a regulation of some sort.

Maybe someday I'll learn not to shoot of at 3AM.

Hasta la vista.

	DEmon.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.individualism,alt.politics.civil-liberty
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College (was Re: Election of Judges)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:05:17 GMT

In article <tal691.717389416@huxley> tal691@huxley.anu.edu.au (Tonio Loewald) writes:
>Why have electoral colleges at all. Why not just count the votes?

Because direct democracy is extremely dangerous.

>By the way, when I say "preferential" I do not mean "proportional".
>In a preferential system, you nominate your first, second, third,
>etc. choices. If your first choice cannot win, your vote becomes
>a vote for your second choice, etc. until someone has an absolute
>majority.

Depending on how you set up the system, this sort of thing often
gives one candidate or another an artificial advantage (E.g. based on
how yuo determin that a candidate "cannot win", etc...)

>The founding fathers didn't have telephones and computers. Electoral
>colleges (it seems to me) were a device for communicating the results
>of regional elections to the centre of government. They are unncessary.

Apparently, there was no discussion of this problem when the Constitution
was drafted. The electoral college addressed objections to direct 
democracy: The electors are _not_ required to vote for any particular
candidate. They can decide that the popular candidate is a liar and
has mislead and tricked the voters, and vote for someone else.

>It seems pretty galling to me that an election where one candidate has
>a 10-21% lead in the polls may lose because of the distribution of
>electoral colleges -- were everyone to vote as expected TODAY. Isn't
>franchise more important than an obsolete gesture to state's rights?

Where did state's rights come from? It has nothing to do with the 
issue. Your real objection seems to be with the "winner take all"
system of selecting electors. But this has _nothing_ to do with
constitutional structure of the electoral college, it is just the
result of state election laws. Any state can change to a district-by-
district system whenever it wants.

(By the way, there _are_ many things more important than the franchise:
Protecting individual rights and preventing tyranny, even tyranny of
the majority, are some of them)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Third Branch (LONG)
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:21:26 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Oct2.070004.6187@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>>Which leaves the real problem of how the Court could (probably
>>subtly and gradually) actually apply the Constitution.

>I guess it depends on the goal.  The court could be slightly less
>subtle, and force Amendments to the Constitution.

Can they? What if the President and Congress simply refuse to accept 
their ruling? The only thing to stop them is public opinion. If the
Court ruling was sufficiently major (say, that all federal welfare programs
are unconstitutional), there might be little public pressure to obey
the ruling. 

>If the States ratify the necessary amendments, the government
>would be constitutional again.  If they do not, then the support the
>court needs would come from the States themselves.  

Which, of course, would mean civil war or the threat of civil war. Are
the states willing to go that far?

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: TEST (don't read)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:04:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.205522.28211@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>I thnk for those who are part of Usenet there is a right to post. 

A right, perhaps, but not a legally protected right. ucus.Colorado.EDU
could stop carrying the entire alt.* hierarchy. Would this violate
my "right to post"? Certainly such a decision would be entirely legal:
I don't own or pay for the machines, and the university (who does
own them) can use them as they see fit. Further (to the point that
started this), they could start a policy, to terminate the accounts
of anyone who wasted resources by posting test messages. It would be
a very silly thing to do, but it is certainly within their legal authority.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Summary: Elitist  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:43:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.010012.534@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank  writes...
>In article <1992Sep29.052607.2097@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> molin@crs.cl.msu.edu (Michael Olin) writes:
>I think the direct election of the President would be a _very_ bad thing
>(or _is_ a very bad thing, since the current implimentation of the
>electoral college might as well be a direct election.) It propmtes lying
>politicians, trying to mislead the voters.

This bulletin just in...Politicians LIE to mislead voters! Got news for
you. Politicians have lied in the past, present, and will continue to
lie in the future. It doesn't matter if we have an electrol college 
or not.

 The votes for President should
>be cast by people who have the time to consider the candidates positions
>and records on improtant issues (as opposed to 30 second "sound bites"),
>but who at the same time represent the desires of the people at large.
> 
This is an increadibly elitist view. What makes you think that these
professional "people" are any smarter than a large percentage of Americans? 
What makes you think that they should have the right to thwart the will
of the average American? Why don't you think people should have a right
to make their own mistakes?

>(Or, if you want to get into personal attacks) I can't believe there
>is ANYONE with a modicum of sense in the cranial region who would
>ADVOCATE mob-rule direct democracy under ANY circumstance.
> 
Whoa! I haven't heard this arguement since someone tried to convince
me that we should return to a monarchy. Or do you suggest we become
an aristocracy? This is the same arguement that King George the First
gave right before his beheading (no kidding. He said there was a 
seperation between the ruling and the ruled).

>                                           Frank Crary
>                                           CU Boulder

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: The Third Branch (LONG)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:48:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.172126.19204@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.070004.6187@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>>>Which leaves the real problem of how the Court could (probably
>>>subtly and gradually) actually apply the Constitution.
>
>>I guess it depends on the goal.  The court could be slightly less
>>subtle, and force Amendments to the Constitution.
>
>Can they? What if the President and Congress simply refuse to accept 
>their ruling? The only thing to stop them is public opinion. If the
>Court ruling was sufficiently major (say, that all federal welfare programs
>are unconstitutional), there might be little public pressure to obey
>the ruling. 

What I meant (and wasn't very clear about) about the "goal" is that if
the idea is to whittle the government down to the original
Constitutional powers, you must be very subtle and very gradual.  If you
merely intend to force the federal government to amend the Constitution
to match the assumed powers, you need considerably less subtlety.  

Your example of the welfare programs assumes that I meant the court
could suddenly and blatantly make a ruling.  I harbor no such illusions.

>>If the States ratify the necessary amendments, the government
>>would be constitutional again.  If they do not, then the support the
>>court needs would come from the States themselves.  
>
>Which, of course, would mean civil war or the threat of civil war. Are
>the states willing to go that far?

Hmm.  I will reverse the question and ask whether the Congress or the
President would be willing to go that far?  I submit that they would
not.  The problem is getting the amendments submitted in the first
place.  If a president adopts a position of defying the court and
Congress supports him, then no amendments would be required.  The court
would simply be padded out to as many justices as are required to
guarantee the opinion desired by the majority, and the decision would
fall.

Essentially what needs to take place is a renegotiation of the contract
between the states and the Federal government.  The amendment process is
one way.  The Convention is another.  I am personally afraid of a
convention run in today's partisan politics.  At least the present
Constitution was created by men who were afraid of factions, not part of
them.  

/Roger
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The Third Branch (LONG)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:14:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.165212.27790@toontown.uucp> ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:
>Hmm, so I guess I am arguing for "original intent" after all eh? :-)

I think what you are arguing for is called "Constitutional absolutism"
(e.g. directly applying the provisions of the Constitution, regardless
of the "modern context" or other excuses to ignore uncomfortable
restrictions in the Constitution.) I'm essentially saying the same 
thing, but I also think that considering the "original intent" is
a valuable tool to understand, and thereby better apply, the provisions
of the Constitution. Perhaps I shouldn't refer to this as "original
intent": It is certainly what people like Judge Bork _claim_ to do,
but their doubtfull application of the concept makes my use of the term
confusing...

>I still think my original point, that the courts are becoming apathetic
>and that this is a danger to our constitutional system, is correct.  But
>I think I now have a more clear idea of what it would mean to reverse this
>trend.

The question is, could the Court survive open warfare with the rest of
the government? If they actually apply the Constitution, they would 
have to rule most of the federal government unconstitutional. The
President and Congress would almost certainly refuse to comply with
such rulings. Public opinion would probably not pressure them to 
accept the Court's rulings: The Court would be saying, in effect, 
"We've been lying for the past 50 years, but now we want to be honest
and take away almost all the federal benifits you have been used to
your entire life." I doubt this would be very popular, nor would
the people demand the President and Congress submit to such rulings...

Which leaves the real problem of how the Court could (probably
subtly and gradually) actually apply the Constitution.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

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