HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: 27th amendment
Summary: Proposed September 25, 1789
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:27:12 GMT

  Although it has seemed to me that the date of proposal of the Bill of 
Rights (and the 27th Amendment) was March 4, 1789 - all this discussion
has caused me to take another look at the information I have.  I have
been referring to a copy (slightly retouched for legibility) of the
proposed 12 Amendments to the constitution which I obtained during
the 200th Anniversary Celebration - from Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
in cooperation with the National Archives.  It starts off:

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire in order to prevent ...


  This was signed by 
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate

  However, the date given in the heading might not be the date of the
document (as I had thought) but instead be the way of expressing which
session of Congress was involved.  The (unsigned/unattributed) material
which I received with the copy says that in response to a request in
George Washington's first inaugural address that on June 8, 1789
James Madison (a member of the House of Representatives) offered nine
articles designed to protect individual liberties.  These were to be
inserted into the text of the Constitution.  A House committee of one 
member from each of the then 11 states considered these plus some
amendments proposed by the states.  This Committee of Eleven sent
their proposals to the full House on July 28 which made some changes,
decided to attach them as amendments and on August 24 adopted 17
articles.  The Senate reduced the number of articles to 12 and made 
other changes and adopted their version on September 9.  A conference
committee made some changes in the Senate version, and their report
was accepted by the House on September 24, 1789 and by the Senate on
September 25, 1789.  So September 25, 1789 is the official date of the
joint resolution proposing Amendments to the Constitution.

  Several days later the document was written on parchment and signed,
and is the document we call the Bill of Rights.  

--henry schaffer  n c state univ

P.S. I misread the Bill or Rights, I misread a Mike Godwin post,
so far it has been quite a week!
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:45:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: misc.legal

	
	Peter writes :

	" It strikes me as completely
	bizarre that men talk about being taken advantage of in this regard.  As
	we have (statistically) larger disposable incomes than women, we can
	afford these payments with much less pain than women.  To suggest that
	the woman somehow gets off totally free in this scenario strikes me as
	out of touch to the point of offensive."

-------------------

	Peter....  you display total misconception regarding this issue...
	It's to be expected I guess, since the idea of parenting
	rights for men is very new.  It takes awhile for society to begin
	to see the issue clearly.... look how long it has been taking
	to see clearly the problems that women have faced....

	Brifly, it's not about men being "taken advantage of", nor is it
	about women getting off "totally free".  It is not about statistics
	or "disposable income".  It is about principles.  It is about
	a whole class of individuals being held responsible for something
	they have no choices in.  If everyone had no choices about becoming
	a parent, then there would be no problem... but women in this
	country enjoy the benefit of choices along with their responsibilities.
	Men are only given responsibilities.

	It is known as inequity.  It is gender-based.  It is sexist, and
	probably unconstitutional.

	If a woman gets pregnant, she has legal options.... men do not.
	They are along for the ride.

	Analogy... if a man chooses to move around the world as he
	pursues career choices, should his wife be legally required to
	accompany him?  After all, she made the "choice" of marrying him.

	-Mike-
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:16:45 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct6.191516.8260@unislc.uucp>, jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren) writes:
> From article <1992Oct6.152435.15187@eff.org>, by mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin):
> > In article <1992Oct5.221030.22369@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
# ##What did the American public think of the Second Amendment at the time of
# ##its ratification?  Did they think it protected members of an organized
# ##militia only, and that the state could decline to organize such a militia
# ##and render the Second Amendment of no consequence? Or did they understand
# ##it to protect individuals who might or might not ever be called upon to
# ##serve actively in a militia?
# # 
# # Well, it should be noted that if the original understanding of the Second
# # Amendment was *not* to reserve a right to individuals, the word "people"
# # in the Second Amendment means something far different from the word
# # "people" in the First Amendment.
# 
# What makes you think that they meant different things each time they used
# the word "people"?  Was it the same with all words, or only that one?
# Was you there, did someone tell you this, or did you just make it up?  If
# you ever need work, the news media is always looking for someone who can
# come up with this s*!t on the fly.  (Did you at least smile as you wrote
# this?)

Mr. Warren, you misinterpreted Mr. Godwin's remarks.  He was arguing
that to hold the Second Amendment was NOT an individual right, would
require different meanings of "people" in the First and Second Amendment,
which only a very disingenuous person could believe.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Liens - Advice needed
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:14:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.203319.11869@nntpserver.chevron.com> xepama@usbk03.bk5001.chevron.com (Parker Mann) writes:
>I am living in California and am two days from closing
>the sale of my previous residence in Texas.  Today I 
>found out that there is a lien against that property.

Your lawyer in Texas should have found out about the lieb=n sooner,
but the results are the same.   Pay off the lien.

>The lien was put on my house a month after I bought it,
>not for anything I had done but because the previous
>owner had not paid his final city water bill.  No notice
>of the action was sent to me and given the time frame
>involved, it looks like I have no choice but to pay 
>the $95 in order to complete the sale.  The city says
>they "don't go to court for such small amounts of
>money".
>
>Aside from being angered to the point of incoherence, I
>have some questions:
>
>Why is it legal for the municipality to act against my
>property for something someone else did?

They don't want to get into a dispute of who owned the house on
what date, and what your purchase contract had to say.  Your
contract might have exempted the seller from paying off the water
bill.

>Is there any *practical* legal recourse I can take?  The
>deadbeat who sold me the house is in New Mexico.

For $95?  Forget it.

You might have a claim against your title insurance company, but
it's shaky there, too.  Ask your lawyer.


>I still have water service in my name at the property.
>What sort of credit trouble do I risk if I deduct the
>cost of releasing the lien from my final bill?


Don't play games.  CLear up the lien.  The city will have to certify
the lien has been cleared.

>What can I do do prevent this happening again?  I mave a
>lot with my job and have never had as a requirement of
>sale that money be withheld from seller to ensure payment
>of future bills.

Depends on the state.  Check with your lawyer at time of purchase.

Often, your lawyer will call the water/electric etc company an hour
before the closing to make sure utilities are paid.  Or the seller
may be required to bring along proof to the closing that utilities
are all  paid.

About 6 months after closing, check to see if there are any liens
against your property, so you still have time to go after whoever
left you in the lurch.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: JD != "lawyer" (was: What a Problem!!!)
Date: 9 Oct 1992 17:11:17 -0700
Organization: Knapp & Viola, Attys., San Mateo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com

In a recent missive tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) tells us:
*In article <1992Oct8.030548.4916@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, 
*noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
*> [summarizing comments by Anne Mitchell, JD (for all you non-legal
*> eagles out there, JD stands for "Juris Doctoris" - lawyer)
*
*Nit-pick alert, but JD means only that the individual has obtained a law 
*degree, not that the individual is a lawyer.  It's possible to get through 
*law school, and never take (or take and never pass) the bar exam, and 
*therefore not be a lawyer.
*

Gee..that'll teach me to not read for a few days, and then to post a
response before reading all the ensuing responses..Terry had already
gone and done clarified things for me!  [Thanks Terry!]

Of course, to make things even *more* confusing, I went and got myself
certified by the bar.  What this means is that I can now make
appearances in court, do depos, etc., provided there is a supervising
attorney present.  Kinda like a learner's permit.  Try explaining
"not being a lawyer" and the distinction between being certified and 
being admitted to the bar, to a client!


Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mjw@viper.eng.ufl.edu (Mike Wohlgemuth)
Subject: Resposibilities of someone with a key to my house
Keywords: What are they
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:21:01 GMT

I recently gave a local pest control company a key to my
house so they could spray while I wasn't there.  After the
first time they used it, my neighbor found the key in the
street with a tag attached which had my address on it.  He
brought it back, so nothing was stolen, but I don't really
feel like paying for someone to leave my key in the street.
Am I able to withhold payment, and if so, how much can I 
withhold? (I owe them for several visits.)

Thanks
Mike

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt-dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.couples
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:17:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.194855.28207@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.050245.6494@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct4.173315.28357@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>>
>>>*Sniff*  I'm hurt.  Deeply.
>>
>>Here's a quarter - go call someone who cares.
>
>Here's five bucks for some Preparation H. I understand that will help you
>with your flaming-asshole problem.
>
>Mike Godwin

This is good.  Mike flames me for "flaming" someone else - implying that
by flaming, I am an asshole.  This is very good.

And people can't understand why I am so concerned about the lack of
logic displayed by so many people in the legal profession.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Changing the World Takes Time (Was: Re: What a Problem!!!)
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:21:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.171629.20725@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com  
(aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> The following is posted on behalf of Ross Williams,
> williams@caesar.safb.af.mil, who is on one of those finger nodes where

[much omitted]

> I thank all youse mouthpieces out there who are taking the time to
> answer this.  And this will probably sound like my built-in rationalization,
> and you'll probably be right, BUT, anyone who agrees with/justifies any of
> the above laws or legal requirements IS WRONG.  Morally wrong.

Silly me!  I actually spent some time drafting a mail response to this guy.
Then I read the above.

A word for Mr. Williams, Mr. Hoffmeyer and their friends - believe it or not
there are actually some people who read misc.legal, know what they are talking
about, and are not unsympathetic to the plight of males in the divorce system.
You don't help your cause my calling such others "mouthpieces" and "morally  
wrong" and demanding that they uphold faulty legal analysis as some sort of
loyalty test.

If you want to preach, take it to another news group.  If you want to run
a theory by some lawyers and law students who will try and give their best
honest understanding of the law, by all means bring it here.

--
Tim Hollingsworth
and then proporting to ask for advice.
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Presidential Debate: Medical Malpractice Suits
Date: 12 Oct 92 03:44:10 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Followups to the alt.politics groups.

From a Clinton campaign press release, as far as I can tell.

----
                        MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

 RHETORIC: George Bush said, "He failed to take on something else: the
 malpractice suit people."

 REALITY: Apparently, Mr. Bush hasn't read the Clinton health care
 plan. "Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms should be made
 available in every state, which can effectively and humanely address
 and resolve these legal challenges." [January, 1992] Arkansas has the
 lowest medical malpractice rates in the nation. [Wall Street Journal,
 9/8/92] Tort suits actually dropped 10 percent in Arkansas between
 1987 and 1990.
-----
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.education
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: School Vouchers: Constitutionality?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:09:19 GMT

In article judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:

>Furthermore, the idea of "school vouchers" is utterly ridiculous.  If it
>is proposed because it will give the chance for parents to send their
>children to good schools, then doesn't this send a message that our
>public school system is not adequate?  Instead of worrying about giving
>parents school vouchers, why doesn't the government put that money into
>the public school system.
>
>Any comments, criticisms?

Uh, a comment bordering on criticism.

In real dollars per student, the public schools today receive more than
at any other time in history.  Thus, throwing more money at schools is
not going to solve anything.

What is the cause of this?  Apparently bureaucracy.  For example, in the
California public schools, there are 127 support staff for every 100
teachers.  In the private schools, the ratio is 16 support staff for
every 100 teachers.  Yet, overall, the private schools dramatically
outperform public schools, even if you factor in socio-economic aspects
(for example, private school children tend to come from more stable
families).

I would say the root cause of the public school collapse is too much
government (local, state and federal) interference in the public school
system, particularly with all the bureaucratic requirements, etc.

The voucher system is an idea whose time has come.  Though there are
problems with it, it is the lesser of two evils.  I believe, too, that
a properly setup system can pass Supreme Court scrutiny.  The only
drawback could be if the Government starts meddling too much in the
affairs of the private schools.

I've also noticed another aspect to the public school debate.  Why is
it that people who obviously are very liberal deeply oppose anything
that would elevate private schools?  Is it because the liberals fear
private schooling since they would have less ability to promote their
various agendas?  Just a thought.

Comments, criticisms?

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.

------->   VOTE FOR PEROT IN '92

Xref: sparky misc.legal:18309 soc.history:8864 alt.politics.usa.constitution:593
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Marbury v Madison (US 1803)
Date: 8 Oct 92 07:01:55 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct8.015059.12826@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.002923.2820@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu                             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.)
>> 
>>Not so.  I've already cited to a 1792 opinion that lists cases where
>>courts overturned an Act of Congress.
>> 
>This is interesting. A couple of years ago I sat through a 
>Constitutional History Class and they said that Marbury vs. Madison
>was the first. Can you email me your evidence?

I'm unsure why you ask this when I end my post with the cite to the
source for the evidence (which you quote in your post).  Can you
clarify your request?

>They did overturn several state laws before this. Are you sure
>you aern't confusing those state laws with federal laws?

Yes.

>>[All of the material in this post comes from David Currie's excellent
>>history "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years,
>>1789-1888."]

More information: University of Chicago Press, 1985, isbn 0-226-13108-4
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
From: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net
Keywords: Equality, Fairness, Same Standards?
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:31:54 GMT
Reply-To: ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1678@frackit.UUCP> dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>
> In article <1992Sep30.040641.25843@news.columbia.edu>, ia4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Imran Anwar) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep29.072416.19305@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
DELETED
>
>Is this the same Islam that believes Christians are the enemy and as
>non-believers should be converted to Islam or destroyed? 
>
>Or is there some other Islam to which you refer?

> ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |


Where did you get that?  If Christians and Jews are ENEMIES and to be DSTROYED
how come the Quran gives us permission to marry them?

Imran Anwar
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: history of forfeiture law
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:50:09 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

>>CD>> How long do you think it will be
>>CD>> before the authorities start to confiscate the autos of people
>
>>They are around here.  I've seen 'em loaded on flatbed trailers at "safety 
>>check" roadblocks not two miles from my house.

Are they siezing the cars (as in using them for police work, or selling them)
or merely impounding them, to be returned to the owner after payment of
towing and storage fees?  [ towing a car from the scene when the driver is
arrested, and there is no licensed driver in teh vehicle not eligible for
arrest, is standard practice in most places ]


Rob Boudrie
rboudrie@chpc.org
From: sauron@femto.engr.mun.ca (Patrick Ryan)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:05:35 GMT

gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:

>[...] seems to me she refused to do a previous SNL
>because of the other guest (Andrew Dice Clay).  The great thing about
>her is that she *truly* refuses to make the usual pop star compromises
>on her integrity.

Integrity?  You think integrity is taking a stand against another
person, describing him as bigoted and racist, then turning around and
condemning a person on the basis of religion?  She's just another
double-standard wielding feminist - she's right to prejudge, I'm scum to
do so.  (Especially when I'm prejudging her, right?)

--
   ,---, ,---, ,-----, /  Of course I said it!  Do you / sauron@ / o o
  /   / /   /    /    / think  MUN  even acknowledges / femto.  /   v
 /---` /---/    /    / my existence, let alone allow / mun.ca  /   `-'
/     /   /    /    / me to speak for them?/chris@zeus rented this space
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Carjacking as a federal offense
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:11:34 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <Bw7KB9.2s4@sneaky.lonestar.org>, gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org 
(Gordon Burditt) writes:
> My car is stolen.  I spot the thief driving the car.  I recognize
> him as a local high-school student.  I confront him as he drives
> the car to his home, and threaten to call the police and his father
> if he doesn't give back my car.  He gives in.  I take the car.
> I have committed carjacking.

Well, remember, we're looking at just one section of the law.  The other 
sections may provide exceptions, etc.  So will the courts, as the law is 
interpreted.


Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:18324 alt.censorship:7970 misc.headlines:6550