Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:36:27 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt460763@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:

> The rights at issue are the ones listed in the bill of rights. They
> are rights people have against the goverment. They say what the
> government is not allowed to do. The only way OpRes could be
> conspiring to violate THOSE is by conspiring to make the government
> do certain things. So Scalia was arguing.

The KK Law [my attempt at correction was misguided] was originally set
in place to protect blacks' "privileges and immunities" under the 14th
amendment from private invasion like from say the Klan.  The KKK was
not trying to get the gov't to do anything, only terrorizing blacks.
So why does it have to be shown (via Scalia rules) that Operation
Rescue is conspiring to make the gov't do certain things?  Doesn't
make any sense.  The 14th amendment has to be the source of the rights
in question since we are dealing with states (the ninth amendment is a
less used possible source), so I don't really get what you are saying
here re the bill of rights.
   The fact that the right of travel (too weak here says Scalia) might
be protected by the law but abortion can't seems to be the key.  One
is a positive right, the other negative (keeping the gov't from doing
something).  Why this matters confuses me, especially with the words
of the law now in my possession.

> Here is the text of the law in question:
>
>       ``If two or more persons in any State or Territory
>     conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the
>     premises of another, [first] for the purpose of depriving,

Operation Rescue went on clinic property to for the purpose of
depriving

>     either directly or indirectly, any person or class of
>     persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal
>     privileges and immunities under the laws; or [second]

directly or indirectly (blocking or terror); any person -- class is
not needed!  or class - women.  equal protection -- Casey noted
abortion is protected partly for this.  p & i -- abortion is one
under the laws of the state and federal courts [consistutional right]

>     for the purpose of preventing or hindering the consti-
>     tuted authorities of any State or Territory from giving

abortion

>     or securing to all persons within such State or Terri-
>     tory the equal protection of the laws; . . . in any case of

women who want to use the clinics

>     conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more
>     persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any
>     act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy,

Operation Rescue planned this

>     whereby another is injured in his person or property, or
>     deprived of having and exercising any right or priv-
>     ilege of a citizen of the United States,

see above

>the party so in-
>     jured or deprived may have an action for the recovery
>     of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation,
>     against any one or more of the conspirators.''  42
>     U. S. C. 1985(3).

it seems they might not with Bray as law

> Jamie

Scalia gets annoyed when people don't look at the wording of statues,
but instead try to use "intent" of the framers etc.  The New Republic
article could have used this decision to show how he selectively does
this.

    -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU