HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Privileges and Immunities
Date: 16 Nov 1992 01:57:40 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>In a previous article, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) says:
>>What is your interpretation of the privileges and immunities clause in
>>Article IV, section 2?
>
>I believe what this clause actually means is that each state
>must honor the acts of the othe states...so if you get married
>in Iowa, you must gbe considered married in Vermont, etc.

Nope. You're thinking of the "full and fair credit" clause, or
something like that.

In Robert Bork's excellent book *The Political Seduction of the Law*,
he says that nobody knows what the "privileges and immunities clause"
is supposed to mean.

Mathew Englander.












































Organization: Masters student, English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:38:50 -0500 
From: Anatole Wilson <aw3a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Electoral College

>That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  IMHO, the FALSE appearance
>of a mandate is, as is the case in many false appearances, a very dangerous
>thing.  The reality is that only 43/100 people actually want this guy in the
>white house!  Isn't that about the lowest popular vote percentage ever?
>Hardly a mandate!

Wasn't Abraham Lincoln voted into office with even less? Somewhere around 40%?
Or is my memory faulty?


Anatole Wilson                  "If anyone objects to anything I say,
-----------------                I am prepared not only to retract it,
                                 But to deny under oath that I ever said it
                                 in the first place."     
                                                               

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: pendleyiv@urvax.urich.edu (Vann Pendley)
Subject: Hating PAC's
Reply-To: pendleyiv@urvax.urich.edu
Organization: University of Richmond
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:16:24 GMT

Today I read that someone here believes everyone hates PAC's...Well I don't.
I don't like the way that the PAC system seems to have been corrupted (if it
weren't here something else possibly worse would be.)  The PAC not only gives
the big companies an outlet in Congress but it also gives a place for the 
smaller companies and individuals to have said what they could not otherwise
effectively said.  Again, before I get flamed, I do not like how the system
is corrupt but give a viable alternative.

Vann
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Did Lincoln Provoke the Civil War (was Re: Electoral College)
Date: 16 Nov 1992 02:05:54 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

John Updike's new novel, Memories of the Ford Administration, is in
large part about James Buchanan, the president just before Lincoln.
One of the things the novel suggests is that if Buchanan had gotten
married, he would never have become president and the Civil War would
never have happened.

The novel also has some interesting commentary on the 1824 presidential
election, which was decided by the House of Representatives. I strongly
recommend it.

Mathew Englander.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1141 alt.politics.clinton:17468 alt.politics.perot:5579
From: hicks@pulsar.rtp.dg.com (Linus Hicks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:43:08 GMT
Reply-To: hicks@dg-rtp.dg.com
Organization: Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1dpbrvINNgdl@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov10.124351.18707@osf.org>, buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman) writes:
|> 
|> > Wouldn't campaign reform be a better idea then?  Clinton and Perot
|> > seemed to be in favor of public financing of campaigns for federal
|> > positions.  This would seem to help in curbing the special interests
|> > and their money and help elected officials to concentrate on their
|> > jobs instead of eternally fundraising. 
|> 
|> As John Anderson found out, public financing is just a clever way to
|> benefit the Big Two parties at public expense while screwing any
|> challengers.
|> 
|> Note that at least one third party refuses public financing money
|> because of their principles, even if it is made available to them.
|> 
|> Whatever "campaign reform" is, public financing isn't it.  I'd
|> rather send my dollar directly to the candidate of my choice than
|> send it in to the IRS and have the government choose the recipient
|> of my largesse according to its own criteria.

It seems obvious to me that the issue is largely one of ethics. If we
don't have ethical people in positions of power (which goes all the way
down the line to those people whom exert influence), then the good of
the masses will not be served. That implies simplistically either:

1. Make sure you have ethical people in government.

2. Have good enough controls in place that anyone in government chooses
   to act in an ethical manner.

I suggest that #1 is not possible unless you either make those positions
unattractive enough to the type of person now in politics for reasons of
power and influence (don't know how you do that), or unless we manage to
achieve some utopia which I don't foresee in the near future.

I suggest that #2 will at best be very difficult because of the very
people now in power. Anything short of a coup will take a lot of time,
but the more people we make aware of the problem through education and
dissemination of information, the less time it will take to make those
needed reforms. We have to make it clear we won't stand for unethical
behavior. I've heard arguments that extra leeway should be given to our
elected officials because of the stresses and strains of their unusual
lives, but I don't buy it. I think they should be held to a higher
standard. If a politician is willing to cheat on his wife, why wouldn't
they engage in other unethical behavior?

Linus Hicks
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:54:58 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov10.160711.14175@mips2.ma30.bull.com>  
msanf@hw23.ma30.bull.com (Marc Sanfacon) writes:

> All a candidate needs to do is get 51% of 5 or 6 of the
> "important" states and he will be practically guaranteed
> to win the election.

But. . . nevertheless, he still needs to get 51% of the votes in 5 or 6 of
the "important" states, and this amounts to a large percentage of votes.
It is not merely that he needs to win 5 or 6 states, but he needs to win at
least 51% of the votes in those states.  In California, it means that he
needs to get over 15,000,000 votes, which is a considerable chunk of the
U.S. population, not merely 1/50th of the states.

--
"It takes a big man to cry.
but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
				Jack Handy


judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:40:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.001854.21773@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>[some deletions regarding the ACLU and the Bork nomination]
>            Bork has a long history of studying constitutional law.
>He has, however, gained a set of opinions about the matter that are
>significantly at variance with many (but not all) other constitutional
>scholars. 

>                   Since nobody has anything but opinions about the
>Constitution, it seems perfectly reasonable that he should be judged
>by some people to have sufficiently inappropriate ones for the job.


    Do you know this, or is this just your opinion?

>-- paul


John Rickert						Quis custodiet
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu			ipsos custodes?
							    -- Juvenal

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:48:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.195049.8662@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>No, Lincoln didn't "provoke" the civil war.  Any 6th grade student could
>tell you that the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter in 1861, which started the
>war...

The war, at least according to the Confederacy, was caused by federal
intervention in matters which should have been purely the concern
of the individual states. (E.g. they were forced to leave the Union
by what they considered impropoer actions by the federal government.)
Lincon and the federal government refused to accept secession and
thereby made war unavoidable (Would there have been a war, if the north
had accepted the formation of the CSA?)

>Lincoln initially AVOIDED condemning slavery in his desperate desire to
>hold the Union together.  His Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until
>1863.

The avoided _banning_ slavery until 1863. He strongly advocated limiting
it as much as possible.

>>I'd think the lesson learned from this, is that it is _extremely_
>>dangerous for a President to _act_ like he has a popular mandate
>>when in fact he does not.

>Um, is there something Lincoln did that you don't LIKE?
 
Like, say, illegally imposing martial law in (as memory serves) 
Maryland, Kentucky and Ohio?
 
>Do you think "the
>majority" should have kept slavery legal?

"Should" have? No, I'm in no way a supported of that institution. However,
that isn't the question: Should my moral views (or anyone else's for that
matter) be imposed by force on a population who (by and large) disagrees?
If your answer is yes, please explain why we haven't invaded China
yet, to impose _our_ moral views of their repression and murder of June 
two years ago?

                                                         Frank Crary
                                                         CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1155 alt.politics.clinton:17540 alt.politics.perot:5597
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Summary: I've never used the misc.test trick before, but you deserve it.
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:14:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame,misc.test
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu's message of 19 Nov 92 15:10:02 -0400

In article <1egoqaINNkvn@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>You know, I'd often speculated that net "conservatives" were so far out,
>far far out man, that they supported slavery, but until Crary's posting,
>I'd never had evidence....

And you still don't.  This is really disgusting, and it gives even
false accusations of racism a bad name.  Nothing Frank Crary has said
in this thread and nothing you've quoted indicates in the slightest
that he supports human slavery.  

Frank's idea isn't complex: to accept that a good (abolition of human
slavery) came out of the Civil War is not necessarily to deny that
some bad (weakening of states' rights and protection of Constitutional
liberties) also did.  Straw-man arguments are a dime a dozen on the
net, but I haven't seen one this vile in 3-1/2 years of reading this
stuff.

One disinterested observer's opinion: you owe him an apology.  Even if
it were forthcoming, were I in Frank's position I'd simply refuse to
respond to further debate from you, for the same reasons I'd refuse to
debate, say, a David Duke supporter.  Some things, even attacks on
one's character, are so low and despicable they aren't worth stooping
to respond to.  Nor are they forgivable.

If Frank responds further to you, he's a better man than I.  I'm so
outraged by your statement above that I'd even love to see your post
become a test case for the first USENET libel suit (and I'm no fan of
suits, libel or otherwise).  If you had written something like that
about me (and, in a way, you did, by idiotically generalizing to all
"net 'conservatives'"), you can bet I'd be doing my damndest right now
to investigate that possibility.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1109 alt.politics.clinton:17360 alt.politics.perot:5556
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:24:41 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Nov17.054801.22283@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.195049.8662@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
 
>Like, say, illegally imposing martial law in (as memory serves) 
>Maryland, Kentucky and Ohio?
> 
>>Do you think "the
>>majority" should have kept slavery legal?
>
>"Should" have? No, I'm in no way a supported of that institution. However,
>that isn't the question: Should my moral views (or anyone else's for that
>matter) be imposed by force on a population who (by and large) disagrees?
>If your answer is yes, please explain why we haven't invaded China
>yet, to impose _our_ moral views of their repression and murder of June 
>two years ago?

Slavery was a great imposition of force on a population which no doubt
disagreed.  (Meaning, I'm sure the slaves didn't want to be enslaved.)  This
great evil demanded redress.  The repression in China also demands redress.
It's not a matter of imposing our views.  The students in Beijing didn't
agree with the government's policies of repression, just like the slaves in
the confederacy didn't agree with that government's policy of enslavement.
One does not have to be confederate or Chinese to justify one's actions to
end the repression of others.

Why haven't we invaded China to end the repression there?  Because it's not
feasible.  We don't have the power to overthrow the Chinese government, and
if we tried, the damage would be unspeakable, far worse than than the
suffering that exists there now.  The suffering during the Civil War was
great, but it was both necessary and feasible to end the evil of slavery.
It's clearly not feasible for us to end repression in China, but that's a
practical concern, not a moral question of whether or not we have the right.
If we were indeed able to end repression in China without doing more harm
than good, and if we were the only ones capable of doing that, it would be
our duty.

I don't see how ending slavery amounts to "imposing our views".  It's not as
if the slaves wanted to be slaves.  My point is, we as individuals should be
free to conduct our affairs as we choose, so long as we do not violate the
rights of others; governments ought to be able to conduct their affairs as
they wish, so long as they do not violate the rights of others, _including_
their_own_citizens_.  If a government takes away basic freedoms from some
of its citizens without the justification of protecting the rights of its
other citizens, then it's action is illegitimate, and it the right and duty
of others, citizens of that country or from half way around the world, to do
what they can to stand up for human rights.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1164 alt.politics.clinton:17586 alt.politics.perot:5607
From: hm@fwi.uva.nl (Hans Mulder)
Subject: Re: Electoral votes
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:16:45 GMT

In <1992Nov14.181310.23130@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.034345.19800@news.ysu.edu> ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
>>While I personally figure that as long as the pop winner still 
>>wins, it's not that big a deal (there are bigger problems in this country
>>than the EC), I feel that a system like Maine's has some merit.
>>It divides it up by Congressional district rather than by the whole state, 
>>with the state-wide winner getting the Senate votes.

>If you could argue your case by first stating what is wrong with the 
>founders design and sound like you understand what they were 
>intending then it wouldn't seem like you were trying to fix something
>that you aren't sure is broken.

Errhm, Mike, are you aware that what Jeremy proposes _is_ the system your
beloved Founding Fathers had in mind?

Today's "winner takes all system" was invented much later.

--
Hans Mulder			hm@fwi.uva.nl
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Dred Scott
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:54:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

Anyone have the full text of the Dred Scott decision?



############################################################################
Rick Eames                         Internet:      athos@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.               CompuServe:    76666,2114
My Opionions are my own.           AmericaOnline: EamesR
"The Lord prefers common-looking people. That is why he makes so many of
them."  - Lincoln

"But you know what?  There's another point that I'd like to make: it's very
possible that Adolf Hitler kept a very nice check book.  You know?  I mean,
and that's fine."  -- Barbara Boxer, Bill Press Show, KFI, 10/24/92
############################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:51:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.202441.8189@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>>>Do you think "the
>>>majority" should have kept slavery legal?
>>"Should" have? No, I'm in no way a supported of that institution. However,
>>that isn't the question: Should my moral views (or anyone else's for that
>>matter) be imposed by force on a population who (by and large) disagrees?
>>If your answer is yes, please explain why we haven't invaded China
>>yet, to impose _our_ moral views of their repression and murder of June 
>>two years ago?

>...The repression in China also demands redress.
>It's not a matter of imposing our views.  The students in Beijing didn't
>agree with the government's policies of repression, just like the slaves in
>the confederacy didn't agree with that government's policy of enslavement.
>...
>Why haven't we invaded China to end the repression there?  Because it's not
>feasible.  We don't have the power to overthrow the Chinese government, and
>if we tried, the damage would be unspeakable, far worse than than the
>suffering that exists there now...

Fine. Then why haven't we invaded North Korea, South Africa or any other
small nation with a repressive government? The objection of feasibliliy
doesn't apply, since the military challange and the involved distrustion
are far less. 

>...My point is, we as individuals should be
>free to conduct our affairs as we choose, so long as we do not violate the
>rights of others; governments ought to be able to conduct their affairs as
>they wish, so long as they do not violate the rights of others, _including_
>their_own_citizens_.

However, we are not in a position to judge that: Those citizens might
consider the violation of rights a fair trade for security. (And argument
that doesn't hold for the events around the Civil War: Slave rebelions
had been occuring since the around 1800.)

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1169 alt.politics.perot:5611
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral votes
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.111645.23139@fwi.uva.nl> hm@fwi.uva.nl (Hans Mulder) writes:
>In <1992Nov14.181310.23130@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov12.034345.19800@news.ysu.edu> ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
>>>While I personally figure that as long as the pop winner still 
>>>wins, it's not that big a deal (there are bigger problems in this country
>>>than the EC), I feel that a system like Maine's has some merit.
>>>It divides it up by Congressional district rather than by the whole state, 
>>>with the state-wide winner getting the Senate votes.
>
>>If you could argue your case by first stating what is wrong with the 
>>founders design and sound like you understand what they were 
>>intending then it wouldn't seem like you were trying to fix something
>>that you aren't sure is broken.
>
>Errhm, Mike, are you aware that what Jeremy proposes _is_ the system your
>beloved Founding Fathers had in mind?

Yes I am.

>Today's "winner takes all system" was invented much later.

I believe it was after the 1824 4-way election.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution