HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Judicial Power = "Create" Law?  Founders Said Yes.
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:20:15 GMT


   ted frank wrote to the effect that the Founders of the Constitution
did not believe in "original intent" themselves, and thus the doctrine
of following the original intent of the Founders is a paradox.

   Interesting, but I think there are a few snares for the uncareful
here.  For one, it would be _essential_ to describe with precision what
is meant by the doctrine of original intent as it is argued for today.
Mr. frank provides no such description.

   I would disagree with Mr. frank's description of the understandings
of the judicial power at the time of the Founders.  There is a difference
between _expounding_ the law and _changing_ the law: the former extends
the range of applicability of the law, whereas the latter most often
strikes down the validity of a law in a range where it has already
been applied.  It would be good to mention Blackstone "The judge is
not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the
old one" (Bk I, 69) and Brandeis "A _casus_omissus_ does not justify
judicial legislation." (Ebert v Poston, 1925)  And Sir Francis Bacon
said "Judges ought to remember that their office is _jus_dicere_,
and not _jus_dare_; to interpret law, and not to make law, or give
law."  This is the opening sentence of his essay on judicature.

    Thus, it is far from clear that the Founders intended for the
judges to have law-making power.  Where I think the confusion is,
is that, in Anglo-Saxon law, judges have had the power to articulate
previously tacit common law.  That is, they may give formal utterance
to the understood standards of justice which were already part of 
the community, which may have not been articulated through statute.

    And whether the Framers believed in original intent or not, I
firmly believe that there is no real alternative which can check the
power of the government.  If the words of the Constitution can mean
whatever we want them to mean, then I do not see how they are really
laws at all.  


John Rickert					Where laws are not
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		sovereign, demagogues
standard disclaimers				arise.  --Aristotle


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: an1168@anon.penet.fi (keynes_tart)
Subject: No Subject
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:36:31 GMT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: noe@cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe)
Subject: Presidential succession
Keywords: "I'm in charge!"--Alexander Haig
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:54:42 GMT

My apologies if this is an annoying query--see the disclaimer below
before you fire up those flamethrowers.

What is the legal order of succession of presidential power?  I know
it's not in the Constitution, I've looked.  That document, especially
with the 25th amendment, makes it pretty clear that if Bill Clinton
should kick the bucket then Hillary Rod...er, I mean Al Gore would
take the reins of presidential power.  I'm also pretty clear on the
notion that the Speaker of the House (Tom Foley) would be next in
line, say if Bill and Al should both get blown to bits during a
Trivial Pursuit game.  And I *think* that the Secretary of State
(Warren Christopher) follows, although at one time I thought that the
President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Robert Byrd?) was fourth in line.

I do seem to remember that there was a very explicit, legal order of
succession, running all the way through the Cabinet officers.  If I'm
correct, what is this order?  Where is it defined, was it in a bill
passed by both houses of Congress?  Thanks in advance for any helpful
answers or pointers.

Disclaimer: I've been reading this newsgroup for a short while and
have seen no FAQ list.  I've already checked my encyclopedia and other
valuable reference works, such as Cecil Adams' "The Straight Dope".
--
Roger Noe                            noe@cs.uiuc.edu
Department of Computer Science       40:06:39 N.  88:13:41 W.
University of Illinois               (217) 244-6173
Urbana, IL  61801  USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Representation for Washington D.C. Controversy in the House.
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:28:31 GMT

In <1993Jan20.203029.4154@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> dev@clydesdale.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:

>fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) once wrote: 
>> The real problem is that most of Washington has nothing to do with
>> the federal government. Perhaps shrinking the national capitol to the
>> one (instead of ten) miles square that contain the Capitol building,
>> the White House, congressional and executive offices,

>Agreed.

>> and giving the rest of the city (i.e. the residential, commercial and
>> generally non-governmental parts) statehood, would be an acceptable
>> compromies.

>Disagreed. I simply find it ridiculous to give statehood to a single
>city. There is no good reason for D.C. to become an independent
>state. Talk about misrepresentation. Rather, if anything should be
>done, return the land to the states which so graciously ceded it in
>the first place. They didn't give up their land to make a new state.

Oh, why thank you so much, but as a Maryland taxpayer and resident
I regretfully inform you that we plain don't want it back!

>They gave it up to give the nation an independent capitol. The
>citizens of ex.-D.C. would then get representation as citizens of a
>couple real states.

>Larry
>--
>Larry Weeks        | "[A good government is one] which shall restrain
>dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  men from injuring one another, shall leave them
>-------------------+  otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of
> industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor
> the bread that it has earned." -- Thomas Jefferson

REB

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Judicial Power = "Create" Law? Founders Said Yes.
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:02:01 GMT


   Two brief comments:

1.  Mr Nagle -- good post.  Thanks for the reply.

2.  A question for those who favor/are not opposed to judicial law-making:
Does the supremacy of a non-elected, non-representative body present a
threat to responsible government?


John Rickert					Consuetudo est optima
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		legum interpres.
-standard disclaimers-				  --maxim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: an1168@anon.penet.fi (keynes_tart)
Subject: No Subject
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:36:31 GMT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew Englander)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Representation for Washington D.C.  Controversy in the House.
Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:58:37 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller) writes:
>
>Hmm.  Come to think of it you are right in the case of Canada.  I
>suppose it could work, but I would feel uneasy about such an
>arrangement here unless there was something in the Constitution that
>said that the Federal government cannot be subject to the laws of the
>state in which it resides.  To give you an example of what could
>happen, the state in which the Federal government resides could pass a
>law that directly affects the operation of the Federal government,
>like restricting the amount of time for Congressional sessions, or
>making the Fed. pay state taxes, like your example in Canada, except
>make it mandatory.  The problem is it would make things very muddy as
>far as who has the upper hand.  The Constitution clearly gives the
>Fed. certain powers over states, but there are areas that it doesn't
>cover.

I think this concern was put to rest with McCulloch v. Maryland, which
decided that a Maryland tax on banks did not apply to a bank owned by
the federal government. 

In any case, the problem could be resolved by retaining the White House,
Capitol Hill, and the Supreme Court building as part of a federal district,
while the rest of what is now D.C. would be given statehood.

You know, the CIA is headquartered in Langley, and as far as I know the
Virginia legislature has not had a great impact on national intel-
ligence policy.

Mathew Englander
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: noe@cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe)
Subject: Re: Presidential succession
Keywords: "I'm in charge!"--Alexander Haig
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:05:52 GMT

I rarely follow-up my own articles, but since someone else out there
might want to know, I'll make an exception.

In article <C1CJ77.GHu@cs.uiuc.edu> noe@cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes:
>What is the legal order of succession of presidential power?  I know
>it's not in the Constitution, I've looked.

Article II of the Constitution empowers Congress to determine the
order of presidential succession in the event that both the president
and vice president die, become incapacitated, or are disqualified from
office.  The present law was passed in 1947 and puts the speaker of
the House first in line (after the vice president), followed by the
president pro tempore of the Senate.  The order of succession next
runs through the principal officers of each of the executive
departments, in the order those departments were established: State,
Treasury, Defense, Justice (i.e. Attorney General), Interior,
Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and
Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, and Veterans
Affairs.  Apparently the other officers elevated to cabinet rank by
the president--I think Bush included the directors of the offices of
Management and Budget and the U.S. Trade Representative--are not
eligible for this succession.  But if new executive departments are
established, their principal officers are automatically added to the
end of the order of succession.  When executive departments are
eliminated by legislation (e.g. when the post office became the
independent postal service in 1970 and the Postmaster General left the
cabinet), principal officers of those departments are removed from the
succession order.  If any one of these people doesn't meet the
Constitutional requirements for the presidency (e.g. not yet 35 years
old), they are passed over in the order of succession.
--
Roger Noe                            noe@cs.uiuc.edu
Department of Computer Science       40:06:39 N.  88:13:41 W.
University of Illinois               (217) 244-6173
Urbana, IL  61801  USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller)
Subject: Re: Representation for Washington D.C.  Controversy in the House.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:32:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew Englander) writes:

>millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>>Some stated their views on statehood for D.C. and they were against
>>it, because the national government should not be subject to the laws
>>of a state that contains it.  I can agree with that concept.  National
>>government would be signficantly weakened and confused if that were to
>>occur.  The state that contained it could control policy for the
>>entire nation.
>
>How do you figure? Canada's capital, Ottawa, is located in Ontario
>and that seems to work fine. (Many government operations are across
>the river from Ottawa in Hull, Quebec.) As I understand the situation,
>Ontario's employment regulations do not legally apply to the federal
>government, but the federal government submits to them voluntarily. For
>example, Ontario has a 3% payroll tax, which the federal government
>pays (on its Ontario-based employees), even though it is immune from
>taxation.

Hmm.  Come to think of it you are right in the case of Canada.  I
suppose it could work, but I would feel uneasy about such an
arrangement here unless there was something in the Constitution that
said that the Federal government cannot be subject to the laws of the
state in which it resides.  To give you an example of what could
happen, the state in which the Federal government resides could pass a
law that directly affects the operation of the Federal government,
like restricting the amount of time for Congressional sessions, or
making the Fed. pay state taxes, like your example in Canada, except
make it mandatory.  The problem is it would make things very muddy as
far as who has the upper hand.  The Constitution clearly gives the
Fed. certain powers over states, but there are areas that it doesn't
cover.  I guess what would be an appropriate follow-up question is
before Washington D.C. was created by constitutional amendmendment,
what was the arrangement?  I know that Congress used to reside in
Boston, Mass., and the presidential residence was located somewhere
else.  The presidential residence was burned down twice, and I assume
had to be relocated, before D.C. was set up.  There was nothing in the
Constitution that said those bodies of government could not be subject
to state laws.

|Mark Miller, computer science   |"Like a government, the operating system   |
|major at C.S.U.                 |performs no useful function by itself."    |
|millerm@cs.colostate.edu        |   --- Operating System Concepts           |
|mmiller@nyx.cs.du.edu           |"Let me ask you something.  Is the         |
|                                |government worth preserving when it lies   |
|                                |to the people?" --- "JFK"                  |
|        "FATHER!...FATHER!...THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!" --- "Dune"          |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Judicial Power = "Create" Law? Founders Said Yes.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:26:20 GMT

rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
>    Thus, it is far from clear that the Founders intended for the
>judges to have law-making power.  Where I think the confusion is,
>is that, in Anglo-Saxon law, judges have had the power to articulate
>previously tacit common law.  That is, they may give formal utterance
>to the understood standards of justice which were already part of 
>the community, which may have not been articulated through statute.
    
       The basic reason we have "judge-made law" is that courts have
to make decisions.  The political process can avoid making a decision,
and may not be able to reach one.  But if you go to court, you get
a decision; you may not like it, but you can at least get one.

       Courts are thus stuck with the job of figuring out what happens
when the legislative branch didn't say what to do.

       I recommend "How Courts Govern America", by Richard Neely
(former Chief Justice of West Virginia) for a clear and somewhat
cynical view of how this works in practice.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu (Susan Soric)
Subject: Wanted: Email source for UN documents
Followup-To: alt.politics.org.un
Organization: Univ. of Chicago
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:48:12 GMT

Is this the place to inquire about the
availability of U.N. and even U.S. State
Department documents by e-mail?

If anyone knows how to retrieve this
kind of information electronically,
I'd appreciate a message.

Thanks.

Susan

==========================================================================================
Susan Soric
University of Chicago
susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A cabinet that looks like America
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:09:40 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: johnd.tamu.edu

In article A2w@rice.edu, johelala@owlnet.rice.edu (Joel Thomas Patterson) writes:
>In article <1k3fjmINNrbc@tamsun.tamu.edu>, fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals) writes:
>|> 
>|> 		Equal rights for the womb-bound.
>|>  
>|>    The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are not 
>|>    shared by my employer or my friends.  However, they should be.
>|>    Fred Seals
>Equal rights for the womb-bound?  Tell me, sir, since when are 
>fetuses citizens of America?  Your citizenship and mine are 
>established by birth certificates, which fetuses do not have.
>Shall the government start making out certificates of 
>conception?
> 
>You, as an ideologue, have no idea what your ideology would
>entail in practice.
>______________________________________________________

Joel, I am sorry that you find it difficult to support equal rights
for this portion of the challanged population of America.  I do like
your idea of certificates of conception.  Perhaps this should be changed
to permits of conception.  Granting only those couples who can display
a willingness and ability to care for and support womb-bound people
once the are free from their challanges.  Just think of the savings to 
the government.

fred

______________________________________________________________________

		Equal rights for the womb-bound.


	The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are 
	not shared by my employer or my friends.
	However, they should be.  Fred Seals





Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Norman LaFave Was: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLA
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:14:46 GMT

exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson) writes:

>Depends on your values and view point.  Foriegn policy folks give
>Bush a big thumbs up, while the jury is still out on Clinton.  Domestic

Oh god, don't make me nauseous.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20755 alt.politics.elections:25031 talk.politics.misc:68940
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:57:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) says:

>
>Approval seems to be around 67% at present. Glad you couldn't wait to
>hear.
>

      Yes, the polls say this.  This is the saddest part of the whole
   thing.  Here we have Russ calling for Clinton's nominee to resign,
   Haiti, BIG goof-up on Saddam, etc.  

      I'm interested in seeing what the polls say...

      After Clinton backpedals on his promise that " 1 + 1 = 3 "

>
>>                           PREDICTION
>
>>In one year an attempt will be made to hold a recall election for
>>the office of President of the United States.
>
>Prediction: In one year no such thing will actually happen. Want to bet
>that a recall will actually happen? I need the $$$$.
>
>>Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>       1996 election countdown - 1385 more days         | These pontifications 
>> until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
>
>-- 
>
>John Morgan Morris
>Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
>Georgia State University
>University Plaza
>Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083
>
>Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
>Telephone: (404) 651-2253
>FAX: (404) 651-2246
>
>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF CLINTON'S INAUGURATION SPEECH??
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:49:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.210648.5292@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Interesting speech, but didn't he forget the line that goes
>
>'Today America, tommorrow the world'  ?
>
>:-)

Ah, but Simon, these are LAME jokes....



--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:55:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
#mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum):
#>ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac):
#>[stuff deleted]
#>   OK, I'll offer some constructive criticism.  To Clinton (and Gore) - 
#>   resign now and save the country a lot of grief.  You weren't elected
#>   because the people wanted you, you were elected because the electorate 
#>   didn't want Bush as President any more.  Get down off your overinflated
#>   ego and realize the people aren't in love with you, you're not the
#>   reincarnation of Jack Kennedy.
#>
#>Well, I guess I see how much good it would be to attempt meaningful
#>dialog with you if that's your idea of constructive criticism.
#
#Maybe Mr. Mulac should take his sour grapes to Alt.Politics.Clinton.whine. This
#type of behaviour reminds me of someone who constantly complains, but doesnt do
#anything to improve the situation. I believe this is called whining. Maybe a
#new group just for whiners is needed. I think constructive criticism is a must,
#but just plain whining is not necessary.

Although I admit Mr. Mulac sounds like he's whining, in the Renewed Age
of America, he's simply offering a futile suggestion. He should be
granted his First Amendment rights to whine and complain and perhaps
even petition for federal funds.

However, I would like to suggest that Clinton and Gore not resign. I
don't want Tom Foley or George Mitchell to be running this country.

I'm also still waiting for alt.politics.clinton.we.got.screwed. :)

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
 know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
	- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc