HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Americans! *smile*
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 21:25:35 GMT

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


>In article <20792@plains.NoDak.edu>, 
>green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) said:

>> This kind of drivel is just plain nonsense.  If this country is so
>> bad, then why are Hatians braving the open sea in leaky boats trying
>> to get here?  Why do people world wide clamor to get in?

>Non sequitur.  That the United States is a desirable place to live
>does not demonstrate that the United States is a morally good nation.

>> Nope, I have no qualms about being proud to be an American!

>Good for you.  As for me, I'm glad to be an American.  But not proud.

 I am proud of my country, but disgusted by the government (note that
I don't call them "our" or "my", I want no part of the current
abomination).

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.use.com)   /

        Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.
From: froh@boi.hp.com (Robert Frohwerk)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP?
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:29:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


Back on May 3, 1992 the New York Times said that new evidence "indicates that 
the Bush-Quayle campaign was involved in a decision by the highest official of 
the Bureau of Prisons to silence [Brett] Kimberlin and place him in solitary 
confinement."  Other than that I'd heard nothing until now since the banned 
Doonesbury series. 

--Bob
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:650 misc.legal:18519
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: 12 Oct 92 07:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <BvvDDI.5oL@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) 
writes:
> 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.

It's not.  It's just the way they're expressing it.  The Congress passed an 
unconstitutional law, and therefore, the power was only proposed to be 
conferred, and was not conferred.  Check it out.


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: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Subject: Re: DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:42:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.132133.1@vax1.umkc.edu> nenglish@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>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??

I saw it appear twice in the NY Times, once last week and once this
week.  For those of you out of the loop -- there is a man (name
unremembered) who is a drug-dealer and old acquaintance of Quayle --
who alleged that he sold marijuana to DQ.  This man is in federal prison
for a long time -- but due to repeated requests from the press for
interviews, the prison decided to let him hold a press conference.  This
was all a few days or a week before the '88 election.

Suddenly, under direct orders from high levels in the Justice
Department, this man was put into solitary confinement (for his own
protection?!) and held incommunicado until after the election.  Needless
to say, this was unusual -- and the "smoking gun," as it were, was the
level at which the orders were placed (not being just the actions of a
overzealous politico prison warden).  I think (?) that a federal court
found that his being put into solitary was not exactly kosher.

It seems to have made it into a fair number of mainstream news sources,
but the big networks don't seem to want to run with it, nor does the
Clinton campaign.

I think it's because Clinton wants to get above the idiotic level of
political rhetoric that has made the Bush campaign embarassing, puerile,
cynical beyond measure, and offensive.  Who wants another cooked-up
scandal, anyhow -- Clinton's going to win!

Gary
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution (was Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:38:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.143750.13483@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>   This might be a good place to mention the difference between interpreting
>the Consitution literally and interpreting it according to original intent.
>From a literal standpoint, the power of judicial review is not granted to
>the Supreme Court.  From the standpoint of original intent, however, there
>is good reason to believe that the court was meant to have final authority
>in pronouncing the meaning of a law: [quote from the Federalist]

There were certainly people like Hamilton, who wanted the Court to have
the final say in matters of constitutional interpertation. But there
were also those who opposed the idea. The Constitution was vague on
thsi point as a compromise. Hamilton and the Federalists hoped that,
through the political process, they could establish what they could
not get specifically put into the Constitution. 

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:53:07 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Oct13.015416.331@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN) writes:

(Actually, friends should let friends vote their conscious, even if
that's something friends disagree on. And voting democratic could be
considered just as objectionable.)

>This is a good point, BUT we are still talking about electing people
>to elect our representatives. Don't you see what is wrong with that?
>The president would no longer have to answer to the people, he would have
>to answer to the electoral college. At least our representatives have
>to answer to us, for now. I don't think that I have to go into the 
>ramifications of this difference.

But the electoral college is elected to do one and only one thing: 
Choose a President. Once they do this, the college ceases to exist.
So the President can't be answerable to the electoral college. He
is, however, answerable to the people (who will pick the next electoral
college.)

>>No that isn't what I was thinking, but it does highlight a major
>>difference in our thinking: You seem to see the people as voting
>>for an individual, where as I see them as voting based on issues.
>>I think the elector should make a decision, as to which candidate
>>will, in office, do what the people want. If he bases his choice
>>on the same issues and the same expectations as the voters, I don't
>>think he is really contradicting the will of the people (even if
>>he csettles on a different candidate.) That is, for example, I
>>see the election of 1992 not as between Bush, Clinton; it is 
>>between more-of-the-same and tax-the-rich-and-have-the-government-solve-
>>our-problems.

>I disagree to a point. Many people vote for a party, which is what 
>you discribe.

No, I was talking about voting for the _candidate's_ platform, not
the party's platform (the two are often quite different.)

>But have you ever heard of Reagan Democrats? 

You mean the ones who supported the issues Reagan championed (or claimed
to champion) with respect the presidency, but supported the platforms
of Democratic candidates for congressional and state offices?

>Personally, I prefer the Parlimentary system, which is much closer to
>what describe. But until then, we still vote for the individual.

We vote for the individual's promises and the individual's stand on the
issues. The question is, would an elector who shifted his vote to 
remain constant to those same views but a different individual, really
be going against the will of the people?

(By the way, I don't think a Parlimentary system is such a good idea:
It would mean the same party would control both the Congress and the
Presidency automatically. There would be no seperation of powers and
no real limits on the ruling party's power. Thatcher's England is
a good (?) example of this.)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jsy@media04.cray.com (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: Proposed: A netnews constitutional convention
Originator: jsy@media04
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 15 Oct 92 07:53:42 CDT


In article <1992Oct15.060103.8653@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> 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
> 


When I said that the 10th amendment is not important today, I said it in light of the
expanded federal powers with regard to the commerce clause and the due process clause.
It seems that the only state powers left these days are those that the federal govern-
ment doesn't want to take over or are politically frustrating.  An example is the abor-
tion discussions.  Slowly, but surely, the feds are coming to grips with the situation,
but until they figure out what they want to do, the courts say that it usually is in
the control of the individual states.

Another example is the education system.  Theoretically, the states are in control of
their own systems, but the courts have mandated changes (good and bad) over the 
schools in the name of civil rights and equal protection.  (I am particularly appalled
that the courts have the power to (in one sense) make laws in this area.  - They mandate
bussing (sp?), class makeup, etc.  While I think that equal access to quality education
is exteremely important, I think that it should be the Congress that makes these decisions.)

Jeff Young
jsy@cray.com
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: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:48:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.200725.12797@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>If you are suggesting that the majority winner _within_ a congressional
>district would win an elector then I would have to disagree with this
>approach.  For one thing it ignores the federal nature of our republic.

I don't see exactly what you mean by this.

>More importantly it would create an environment wherein the candidates
>could concentrate on populous areas during the campaigns.  That is, a
>candidate would emphasize urban areas of high population and the 
>candidate would likely direct his campaign toward those issues unique
>to urban areas.  This contradicts the current functionality which forces
>the candidate to gain broad support across the country in order to win.

I think would have exactly the reverse effect: Currently, a candidate
can concentrate on urban centers and thereby win the all of the
state's votes (aasuming the urban vote was large enough to 
offset the loosing rural support.) If the election was on a
local level, a politician who concentrated on certain districts
would win only part of the state's electors and risk loosing
the rest.

>I also question the effect on the two party system.

Hopefully to weaken it, but I haven't considered this subject...

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:658 misc.legal:18563
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Subject: Judicial Review (was: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:50:01 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct11.012951.12585@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, 
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <4bwo02H725tV01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 
> (Terry Carroll) writes:
> 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."
> 
> However, Marbury also
> asserted that all other branches of government were bound by the
> Court's ruling (e.g. the President is bound to enforce Court rulings, 
> even if he disagrees with the Court's interpertation, Congress is
> bound not to pass laws that violate the Court's terpertation, etc...)
> That is, Marbury was the case where the Court claimed the _final_
> word, in matters of interpertation. And, further, there is no 
> constitutional justification for their having such a _final_ authority.

Ah, now that's a good point.  After _Todd_, Congress responded by repealing 
the statute.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:578 misc.legal:18241
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:35:19 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Oct7.120643.4325@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) 
writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.033327.1681@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki 
> Kuoppala) writes:
> >>
> >>Well, the executive and legislative branches are given *no power at all*
> >>to make *any* interpretations of the Constitution. So, by your own
> >>reasoning, the interpretive power lies in the judicial branch.
> >
> >I don't see how that would follow.  How about having each individual
> >in the executive and legislative branches interpret the Constitution as
> >they are required to take an oath to uphold it anyway?
> 
> Nice idea. Add it to the language of the Constitution and we'll have
> something to talk about. In the meantime, the Constitution grants
> jurisdiction for cases "arising under" the Constitution only to the
> judicial branch--it does not grant this jurisdiction to the executive or
> legislative branches.

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.

In other words, the Article III language is intended to establish that only 
the federal courts are competent to decide issues of federal law; state 
courts are not.

I don't disagree with Mike that the courts are the ultimate arbiter of 
questions of constitutionality.  However, I think that this is more of a 
policy decision based upon the historical background and tradition of 
judicial review (of which the framers were aware) as being implicit in the 
term "judicial power" as used in Article III, as well as practical 
considerations (such as the relative disinterest of a court as compared to 
that of a legislature which was responsible for the statute's enactment).  
That is, it is based more in Section 1, which confers the judicial power than 
section 2, which describes jurisdiction.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Not that kind! Re: 3 Branches of Government: Is it time for a change?
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:02:55 GMT
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore

In article <1992Oct09.134553.130611@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>I argue that within a democracy different forms should be tried 
>until we find one most suitable to our taste.  

And I am arguing that before we try placing more power in the hands of fewer
people, we try moving power back toward the people.

>If you read the rest of my previous post, I wrote that indeed the 
>higher level decision between democracy and communism is very important.

The term communism is rather vague and not necessarily diametricaly
opposed to democracy under some definitions. (Nelson Mandela thinks
China is a progressive democracy, for instance and East Germany was
formally known as the GDR or Democratic Republic of Germany.) You will
have to be more precise in your statements. Moreover, it is liberty,
not democracy, which is of importance in day to day living. Discussing
democracy presupposes that power has already been yielded to a central
government (or is not to be returned to the people by it).

>On a different note, how would you categorize the governments that 
>Japan and Germany have?

Well, Japan is nomimally a democracy but, in fact, power is perhaps divided
even more than in the US. I suggest you read the book _The Enigma of Japanese
Power_ (or something like that, I can't remember) where the author, a
European correspondent in Japan, goes into detail about how the people
"at the top" really have no power. Indeed, even the most casual observer
of Japan can't help but notice how they change Prime Ministers.

Germany, on the other hand, is another Federal government and, in terms of
government spending at least, is more local than even the United States.

On a different note, how would you categorize the government of Hong Kong
which has had the fastest economic growth of any post-WWII "nation".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: mhessman@world.std.com (Mark D Hessman)
Subject: Re: DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:53:02 GMT

The prisoner's name, if memory serves, is Brett Kimberlin, and he says that
he sold marijuana to Dan Quayle some time ago. I haven't seen much about
the story in major news markets, and it hasn't been raised in the campaign
mudslinging yet, but it got pretty detailed coverage in Rolling Stone and
Esquire sometime over the past year and a half.

Clinton/Gore is right in not jumping all over it; the contrast between
their behavior and Bush's rumormongering speaks for itself.

                                                        -- Mark
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Not that kind! Re: 3 Branches of Government: Is it time for a change?
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:38:36 GMT
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore

In article <1992Oct08.142150.4747@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.053915.6373@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>> Proposing the UK as a model for the US to follow is
>>pretty scary given the decline of that once great nation.
>>
>Are you arguing that the UK declined because of their form
>of government?

Although not the thrust of my argument, I would say, yes, that the 
parliamentary form of government is far less able to resist the kind of
cannibalistic socialism that pervades modern Europe. The parliament
was not always supreme; once, there was the monarchy and, in a very real
sense, the US Government was modeled after the British system with the
executive branch as an elected monarchy. When Britain scrapped its
monarchy (well, demoted it to figuredom) it did not replace it. To make
matters worse, the House of Lords (also demoted to figuredom) was also
not replaced. All political power fell to a single branch of government
which had absolute and unchallenged power.

>I would argue that the decline was caused by the policies
>or lack thereof of the government.

The form of government has an enormous impact on the ease which certain
policies can be implemented. After WWI, there was absolutely nothing
to stop the Labor party from turning the state against the economy.

Indeed, given that this thread began as a complaint about "gridlock" in
US government, it seems rather silly to argue that the form of government
does not matter.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution