HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Voting tactics (was: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:58:31 GMT


In article <Bvt3u5.IvC@apollo.hp.com>, heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com said:

> > I'm voting Libertarian in November.
>
> I'm all for using your vote to attempt to make a statement, and show
> support for a philosophy and platform you _really_ believe in.
>
> However, I must also be somewhat of a pragmatist when November 6
> rolls around.  There is no way Marrou is going to win this election.
>
> In my mind, it would be the worst possible thing for this country to
> have Bush in there for a second term.  Judge for yourself what you'd
> like your vote to do - make a statement, or make a difference in
> who's elected.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, let me just remind everybody
that although this is a national election, your vote will only affect
the fate of your own state's slate of electors.  If you're going to
take the pragmatic rather than idealistic approach to Election '92,
you should do it in the context of your own state -- is your vote
likely to be vital in deciding the issue of whether Bush or Clinton
wins in your state?  If yes, vote pragmatically, if no -- that is, if
your state is virtually certain to be a blowout one way or the other
no matter what you do -- then feel free to cast an idealistic vote.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.drugs] Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Keywords: New-Speak
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:54:52 GMT

A repost from alt.drugs:

From: crossgl@infonode.ingr.com (Gordon Cross)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Keywords: New-Speak
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:59:33 GMT

In article <61111@mimsy.umd.edu> tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:

>     Depends on how many employers decide they'd like to make the same
>requirement. Look at what happened when a lot of companies started
>drug testing; it's very difficult to get a job (in some fields) these
>days without pissing in a bottle. (Of course, these days, it's hard to
>get a job.)

Uh, most of the drug testing being done is done as a requirement to procure
Federal contracts or under general government pressure.  Somehow I don't
think it would be as widespread if the DC boys left everyone alone ...

>     In spite of the way they trample their employees' privacy,
>companies like Blockbuster Video and Coors Brewery thrive. They may
>not be quite as bad as the hypothetical example, but they're bad
>enough.

The vast majority of the peons in the general population have been brainwashed
to the point that they think this is a good idea.  Blockbuster may well be
thriving *because* of this policy rather than in spite of it.
-- 

Gordon Cross          UUCP:     uunet!ingr!infonode!crossgl   "all opinions are
111 Westminister Way  INTERNET: crossgl@infonode.ingr.com    mine and not those
Madison, AL 35758     MA BELL:  (205) 730-7842               of my employer."
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Keywords: New-Speak
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:32:02 GMT

That was Great! Now, if the ACLU would only commit to fighting for the
2nd Amendment as well!
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections
From: heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com 
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:20:28 GMT
Reply-To: heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com 
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Keywords: New-Speak


> Thanks for posting that extract from the Republican Platform. I knew
> that the platform was bad; I didn't realize that it would make me ill
> reading it. I'm voting Libertarian in November.

I'm all for using your vote to attempt to make a statement, and show 
support for a philosophy and platform you _really_ believe in.

However, I must also be somewhat of a pragmatist when November 6 rolls
around.  There is no way Marrou is going to win this election.

In my mind, it would be the worst possible thing for this country to have
Bush in there for a second term.  Judge for yourself what you'd like your
vote to do - make a statement, or make a difference in who's elected.


Jeff Oesterle

================
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, 
nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
                                         - George Bush
<choke> <cough> Say WHAT?!?!?!?
================

(Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim.)
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6237 alt.drugs:16957 talk.politics.drugs:6729 alt.psychoactives:1355
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:29:07 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena


	I missed the basenote of this chain.  What medical journals was the
FDA banning and why?  Isn't unconstitutional for them to do so?

-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6284 talk.politics.misc:51946
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship et al] [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:46:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1992Oct7.183117.18555@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

> [ Quoting the Republican Platform]

> >However, no
> >artist has an inherent right to claim taxpayer support for his or her
> >private vision of art if that vision mocks the moral and spiritual
> >basis on which our society is founded.

>    "Art provides the people of the state with a moral guidance and
> direction of purpose.  No artist should be allowed to exhibit his works
> in our libraries, museums, and public squares, if they do not extoll
> and support the virtues of The Fatherland."  - Adolph Hitler.

This is a very compelling argument for no tax funding.  Of anything.  Art,
libraries, museums, public squares, all of it.

Then personal choice, not collective dictate, will determine what art is
seen.

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 10:09:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.033539.7738@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.163321.16436@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>
>>Frank, you probably should do some reading about the origin and legitimacy
>>of judicial review.
>
>You mean like taking a course in constitutional law and reading, say,
>Marbury v. Madison, Gibbson's dissent in Eakin v. Raub, Martin v.
>Hunter's Lessee and Ex Parte McCardle?

No, I mean doing a lot more than that. Try reading some treatises that
deal with the subject, such as Nowak and Rotunda's or Tribe's
constitutional-law treatises, or Wright's hornbook on federal courts, or
any number of law-review articles that analyze the arguments for and
against judicial review.

>If you can suggest other
>cases of relevance, I'd be interested. 

Reading cases is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
understanding the rationale for judicial review.


--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.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:40:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.100408.23321@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>Not at all: It takes a fairly loose interpertation to read "judicial
>>power" as including "interpert the Constitution."

>It is hardly a "fairly loose interpretation" to anyone familiar with
>English courts and the common-law tradition.

Excuse me: For clarity, I should have added, "with final authority, binding
on all other branches of government." This certainly isn't the case 
under common law, nor is it implied by the grant of "judial power"
in the Constitution.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal,soc.history
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution (was Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 10:24:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.035001.16068@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>Article VI,  section 2:
>
>"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned [e.g. of the United
>States] and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
>and judical Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
>shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
>
>All of the mentioned persons mush interpert the Constitution, in order
>to be sure their actions are in support of it (e.g. not unconstitutional.)

You're putting into play here a different sense of the word "interpret"
than the one connected with judicial review. In the broadest sense, we all
interpret the Constitution (that's what we're doing in this thread, for
example, and that's what legislators and the president do when they try to
abide by their oath). But as far as legally binding interpretations go,
Marshall is drawing upon the British legal tradition and on Article III
when he says it is the province of the judicial department to say what the
law is.


--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
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:44:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Keywords: New-Speak
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:28:40 GMT

Karl,

Thanks for posting that extract from the Republican Platform. I knew
that the platform was bad; I didn't realize that it would make me ill
reading it. I'm voting Libertarian in November.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 06:36:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.014409.14024@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Reading cases is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>>understanding the rationale for judicial review.
>
>I'm sorry, but I'm a great believer in primary sources:

So am I. But you apparently think that cases are the only "primary
sources," and that one can rely on primary sources only to the exclustion
of secondary ones. With this extreme position I must disagree.

> They are, really,
>the only relevant facts in the debate.

This seems to be argument by assertion. Did you mean to append an "IMHO"
here?

> How "experts" have interperted
>these facts is, to me, far less important than the facts themselves.

Your scare quotes around "experts" adequately conveys your scepticism. But
which "experts" have you read, and why are you sceptical of them?


--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.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.
From: ash@ulysses.mr.ams.com (Alan Harder)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: American Math. Society
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:06:34 GMT

In article <a5m6RB3w165w@korova.uucp> susan@korova.uucp (Susan) writes:

   >What, exactly, is herbalim -- if I go over to my neighbor's house, borrow 
   >some derb, use it according to her instructions and then sue for 
   >malpractice.  

   >I suspect that it is illegal to practice herbalism as medicine, but as 
   >far as I can see in 15 or so state, it's legal to sell herbs and 
   >preperations as over-the-counter treatments along the lines of blistex 
   >and Blue Star Ointment.  Seems reasonable to me.

Well, I've read that in England herbalists are licensed practitioners.
At least that's what my herb book says.  I think they have to take
some sort of training (and pass a test?) to become licensed.  Sounds
kinda like a neat system.  I wonder how well it works.


-Alan
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution (was Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:21:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.120643.4325@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) 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.

How about:

"     [3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Since the individuals are required to support the Constitution,
doesn't this mean that they also have to understand and thus interpret
it?  Having the supreme Court interpret it for them sounds like a
strange idea without it being mentioned in the Constitution.

And how about the quote posted by Charles Scripter?

    "You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
     constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and
     one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy....
     The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         Thomas Jefferson, 1820.


//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6207 alt.politics.usa.constitution:607 misc.legal:18394
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:39:00 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Followup-To: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

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
> 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."

Note follow-ups line.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Subject Index for a (small) Civil Liberty archive
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:50:30 GMT

Subject index for ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/civil-liberty
 
    (Information on gopher, ftp, and e-mail access follows.)
 
=== Subject Index ================================ File or /Directory Name ===
Campaign for the Bill of Rights '92 -- ACLU                  : campaign-92.aclu
Civil Liberty Archive                                                  : README
Declaration of Sentiments from 1st Women's Rights Conventi : womens-rights.1848
Pointer to Civil Liberties FAQ                                    : faq.pointer
Subject Index for Civil Liberty Archive                  : README.subject-index
Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- United Nations       : human-rights.un
Women Against Censorship -- Excerpts                 : women-against-censorship
 
=============== ACCESS =================
 
If you have gopher, the archive is browsable with the command:
gopher -p academic/civil-liberty gopher.eff.org
 
The archive is also accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory pub/academic/civil-liberty.
For email access to a file or directory, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
 
send acad-freedom/civil-liberty <filenames>
   OR
send acad-freedom/civil-liberty/<directoryname> README
 
where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want or
<directoryname> is the name of the directory you want. File README
is a detailed description of the items in the directory.
 
For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: Ben Masel <bmasel@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:37 PDT
Subject: PRISONERS RIGHT TO VOTE?
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1718600001:000:2222
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Oct 10 01:37:00 1992


						516 E Mifflin #4
						Madison, WI 53703
						608-257-5456 Oct.
						4, 1992

Rick Raemisch, Dane County Sheriff 210 Martin Luther King Blvd.

	As I am sure you are aware, I have declared my candidacy
for the office you currently hold, and to which you seek
re-election. I have registered my candidacy with the Dane County
Clerk. This letter formally notifies you of my intention to
personally campaign among the elegible voters in your custody at
the Dane County Jail and Ferris Center. I intend to visit these
prisoners in company of a voter registrar. We will be willing to
submit to a search before entering secured areas.

	You are reported in the Oct. 1 Isthmus as being unwilling
to approve my visit citing security concerns.  In view of my
willingness to co- operate on particulars in arranging access, I
can only conclude that your real reason for obstructing such
visits is concern for your job security.

	If this is indeed the case I believe your use of your
position to obstruct my campaign activity constitutes malfeasance
sufficient to cause your removal from office and criminal
prosecution. In any event I am prepared to bring action before the
Wisconsin Elections Board and/or Dane County Circuit Court to
compel access to all eligible voters in your custody.

	I also hereby request (persuent to the Wisconsin Open
Records Law) to be informed of any arrangement your department has
made to enable all eligible voters in your custody on Nov. 3 to
exercise their right to vote, and to inform them of the steps they
must take to do so. When I was in custody in the Ferris Center in
1986 I was told prisoners would only be allowed to vote by
absentee ballot. This is insufficient, as it disenfranchises any
individual placed in custody after the absentee voting deadline. I
strongly recomend you immediately take steps to insure sufficient
staffing for Nov. 3 that prisoners unable to vote absentee may be
safely escorted to their designated polling place. Since there are
candidates for Federal office on the Ballot this year, your
failure to do so could violate Federal, as well as Wisconsin,
Election Law.

					Tenaciously yours, Ben
					Masel Write-In Candidate
					for Dane County Sherriff


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:53:00 GMT

In article <BvprnM.6AK@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>>Note, by the way, that this grudging acceptance is largely due to political,
>>not legal issues: The people _expect_ it, and fighting a Court ruling
>>would probably result in loosing an election.

>Not so.  Consider the immediate response by Congress to the SC's
>flag-burning decision.  They wrote a new federal law that was clearly
>aimed at the court, adversarially...

To some extent, that was my point: If Congress think it can get away
with it (e.g. when the public objects and disagrees with a Court 
ruling), they don't feel bound be Court rulings.
	
>Marshall was a bit power-hungry, it seems.  I have often wondered if he
>deliberately neglected to deliver Marbury's commission, just to 
>synthesize this case.

I'm not sure about power hungry: I think he was pushing a political
agenda, but not one that necessarily benefited him personally.
In the case of the commission, however, I don't think he was looking
that far ahead: As I recall, he had a stack of such comissions to deliver,
and had his brother help: It was Marshall's brother who didn't manage to
deliver...

                                       Frank Crary
                                       CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc