HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Necessary and Proper
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:41:02 GMT

In article <14014@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In fact, the problem is that many people are convinced that the
>"necessary and proper" clause IS a blank check.  

This is a strawman argument.  I haven't seen a single jurisprude
argue this.  What I have seen argued is a broad reading, but this
argument, unlike Clayton's, is supported by the text of the Constitution,
as well as common sense (see Marshall's opinion in McCulloch).

>See Hamilton's 
>Federalist 29, where he makes it clear that people who think of
>this clause as some sort of blank check are crazy.  He argues
>that while this includes reasonable actions that are truly necessary
>and proper, this doesn't mean that the Federal Government's
>authority is unlimited, as modern liberals seem to feel:
>
> It would be as absurd to doubt,
> that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its
> declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of
> the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution
> of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws
> necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes
> would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the
> alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in
> cases relating to it.

And indeed, none of this has happened in the field of taxation.
The interpretation of "necessary and proper" in Court history has
followed Hamilton's guidelines.

Note that if the Founders meant a very limited conception of necessary
and proper, they could have used the language "absolutely necessary."
Indeed, they did just that, in Article I, Section 10, where they limit
the states to laying "Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except
what may be _absolutely_necessary_ for executing its inspection Laws".

Given the use of the phrase "absolutely necessary" elsewhere in the
Constitution, a broad reading of "necessary and proper" is textually
appropriate.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:36:01 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d15
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:39:53 GMT

In article <9301272139.AA25748@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> Broward L. Horne,
blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu writes:
> 	Congratulations!
> 
> 	You just bought yourselves a Triple 'E' ticket on the 
> 	greatest deflationary ride in HISTORY!
> 
> 	Come, on, Billy Boy!  Energy Tax, we NEED it!  Gotta cut 
> 	consumption!  Cut that military too.  
> 
>         And there go those entitlements!   YES!


pathetic.........

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69202 alt.activism:21186
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:28:56 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) wrote:
> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>> I may add that workers _have_ tried changing such circumstances by forming
>> labor unions, and I've yet to see Libertarians take unions seriously.
> Supporting the right of people to form labor unions is part of the party
> platform.  How much more seriously do you want them to take it?

Anyone out there seen a Libertarian Party banner on a picket for the
reinstatement of workers sacked for unionizing?

Hello?

HELLO OUT THERE?...

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70080 misc.legal:23417
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Waiting for Perot (Was Re: Who's weakening the constitution?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:17:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <14051@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1728@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>> In article <13948@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #Bush wasn't strong anything.  Large numbers of conservatives (about
># #1 in 5) voted for Perot because of disgust with Bush's leftist politics.
># 
># 	I shudda known - after George Bush wiped Pat Buchanan off the
># electoral map in all 50 states, Clayton the Libertarian sadly and with 
># a heavy heart, turned his back on the Republican Party and turned to the 
># "Great White Hope", Ross Perot.
>
>No, I didn't vote for Perot, though I know a fair number of people who
>did.  But then again, I'm not a conservative.

	Wait a minute - aren't you the same guy who got upset when the
"liberal" Richard Nixon imposed wage/price controls ? Is the next thing
that I'm going to hear something to the effect that Ronald Reagan isn't
a conservative, either ?

>
># 	CLAYTON is the reason why Bill Clinton carried California, and  is now
># in his third day as the 42d President of the United States of America.
># 
># 	This point should not be forgotten - after all, elephants never
># forget.
># 
># Bill R.
>
>Clinton received 43% of the vote.  Bush received 37%.  Perot received
>effectively all the rest.  Most of Perot's support came from 
>conservative to moderate sorts who would likely have voted for Bush --
>which would have probably given Bush a thin margin of victory over
>Clinton.  Why is this so hard for you to accept?

	Well, if you don't like Bush, and you didn't vote for Perot,
that only leaves one (major) candidate left. I stand by my statement
that you're the reason Clinton carried California. 


Bill R.

--

"When up a dangerous faction starts,         "My opinions do not represent
With wrath and vengeance in their hearts;     those of my employer or
By solemn League and Cov'nant bound,          any government agency."
To ruin, slaughter, and confound;             - Bill Riggs (1992)
To turn religion to a fable,
And turn the Government to a Babel;
Pervert the law, disgrace the gown,
Corrupt the senate, rob the crown;
To sacrifice old England's glory,
And make her infamous in story.
When such a tempest shook the land,
How could unguarded virtue stand ?"
- Jonathan Swift (1732)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
From: hallam@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:28:19 GMT

In article <93027.030741MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> Is anyone else even slightly annoyed by how the military itself is
> causing so much trouble over this issue? You can't turn on a TV set
> without seeing Colin Powell self-righteously orating on how awful
> and bad it would be to let 'em in, or open a newspaper without seeing
> yet another leak of confidential memos to the press or statement by
> the Joint Chiefs trying to cause confusion and chaos.

I am very surprized that US generals are allowed to make political statements
such as this. If a British soldier ever made a speach like Powell they would be
up on a serious charge.

The point is that when you are a soldier you give up a lot of your civil
rights. The chiefs of staff are asserting that it is necessary to give upo the
right to chose who you sleep with. but the damage done to the country when
generals decide to interfere in the legislative functions of the country is far
more serious.

If you take a major office then you are constrained by the responsibilities of
that office. For example if Bill Clinton were to start pontificating on church
affairs people would rightly get upset. If a person was being accused of
some crime and Bill decided to launch into an attack on them as if they were
guilty it would be very serious, unless of course the crime was committed by
a fellow politician and directly affected the workings of government. Even then 
a President should never comment on a trial in progress in case they prejudice
it.In the same way the chiefs of staff have no business touting their political
opinions.

> 
> For once and for all it's not The Military's job to underhandedly lobby against
> the President's policies. It is The Military's job to do what the President
> and the Congress order it to. If Bill Clinton orders them to capture the
> South Pole in the name of freedom and democracy, then by god we should
> be bombing Antarctica by this time tomorrow morning, and Powell had better
> be SMILING about it, capische?
> 
> If Congress overrules Clinton, now, that's a different matter. They have
> every right to do that (even though I think they're totally wrongheaded here).
> But the military has no right to do anything but follow orders.
> 

Congress can try to overule him but it might be interesting to see them try.
Clinton is only commited to keeping his end of the bargain as far as repealing
the executive order. If Congress go against him they will be having to explain
it to their electors. In this sort of case there are an awful lot more votes to
be lost by voting agaisnt than to be won voting for it. Outside the
fruitcake-belt a politician attacking another for voting to allow gays in the
military would be truly hammered for it.

Phill Hallam-Baker

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Debt Not Necessarily Bad
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:29:15 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


This is an excerpt from an article in the latest issue of the Economist,
(1/16-22), page 28, on the subject of the budget deficit:

   "Meanwhile, the burden of the deficit grows.  Interest costs, which look set
to rise by $20 billion a year, are now the budget's third-largest item.  They
attack the economy's vigour in many ways: by crowding out private investment, by
distorting market choices, by transferring income from (poorer) taxpayers to
(richer) investors.
    All this might have seemed more acceptable during the early part of the
1980s, when there was little international demand for credit other than from the
federal government.  Today, with Eastern Europe, Russia and Latin America crying
out for capital, that is no longer true.  Now, as then, the dollar is starting to
rise against other currencies, buoyed up by the high long-term real rates of
interest for which the deficit is largely to blame.  Now, as then, a stronger
dollar (which renders American exports dearer) is starting to heighten
protectionist sentiment in the United States.  That is just another example of
the insidiousness of deficits."

Hope it was illuminating.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:30:10 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1k3tlpINNrb6@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

|In article <6563@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)  
|writes:
|> If the union cannot organize enough workers to have a strike give  
|pause to
|> the employer, then it hardly merits the name, and using the power  
|and
|> coercion of gov't to prop it up will not benefit anyone in the long  
|run,
|> no matter how nice it is to strong-arm management.
|> 

|This is true only if the employer isn't allowed to fire anyone
|who tries to join a union.  By doing so, they can prevent
|the union from ever getting any power to bargain effectively.

Tell me, would you patronize a company that fired workers for trying to
form a union?
A lot of people wouldn't.  Any company has to take it's public image in
mind when it tries such things.

Trying to paint the picture as being just a bunch of weak and powerless
workers against megalithic corporations is quite simplistic.

How did unions manage to form in the first place when government was
actively pro-management?
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
From: fxars@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: Selling  of tv rights
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
	<FXARS.93Jan21093616@thelastone.acf-lab.alaska.edu>
	<1993Jan21.205358.3336@linus.mitre.org>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:05:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.205358.3336@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <FXARS.93Jan21093616@thelastone.acf-lab.alaska.edu> fxars@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
> }In article <1993Jan21.153839.20614@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> }> How did the Clinton Campaign manage to sell exclusive rights to
> }> something happening at a national monument on public land to a private
> }> business (HBO, for example)?
> }
> }Private commercial events/concerts happen on federal land all the
> }time, espcially land managed by the U.S. Park Service, which, I
> }believe, most National Monuments are.  What exactly are you talking
> }about?  I hope this has nothing to do with the inaugural.  
> 
> Clinton's arrival and welcoming into DC was carried exclusively by HBO.
> They, in turn, fed it to who they wanted after imprinting the HBO
> logo on it.  If HBO didn't get the credit for it, you didn't see it.
> The sites were the 14th street bridge and the Lincoln Memorial.

Hmm... this is iffy.  Of course he wasn't President at the time, and
it occurred just after the campaign was over.  I have a tendency to
give him a break.  Maybe he still had to pay some bills.  Keep in mind
that Presidents still have $1,000/plate dinners (at least the
Republicans do).  Still, he shouldn't make a habit of it.  In fact,
now that he's President, he shouldn't be allowed to give a particular
TV network exclusive rights (at least for money) until he has left
office.  He can still do exclusive interviews, as long as he gets no
compensation for it.  If he does, he gets the Al tacky award.
=== Al
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird should step aside
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1jki43INN1ph@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>
	<1993Jan21.131622.3838@hemlock.cray.com>
	<1993Jan22.014851.24982@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:54:41 GMT

<In article <1993Jan22.014851.24982@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
<   In article <1993Jan21.131622.3838@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
<   >
<   >NPR (Nina Totenberg) just said that Feinstein & Braun are working
<   >behind the scenes to get Zoe to withdraw.  I hope it's true.

<   I believe NPR reported this evening that Feinstein has received some
<   600 letters/phone calls/telegrams against Zoe, and some 30 for.
<   Certainly, there's strong pressure from the electorate.

	So? Since when has D. Feinstein ever paid much attention
	to the electorate?

	Unless "electorate" is semantically equivalent to
	"large corporate campaign contributor".
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.celtic
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: What all this about Morals?
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:09:45 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>This way kids would Know which side of a Claymore
>went which way....

"You hold the dull end and hit him with the pointy end!"

oh - you mean one of them newfangled noisemakers.

Never mind.

chus
pyotr

-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Nothing says loving like a bun in the oven.
EOF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69211 talk.politics.theory:5725 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13482
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:07:24 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, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) says:
>: 
>: What's the difference between issuing bonds and borrowing money?
>: 
>: What do you think treasury bills are?

        Economic JIT.  I can't wait.  Perhaps we can have a 
        government TQM program, too.


>They're issued whenever the government needs to borrow to cover its
>defecit spending.
>
>Ted, you miss the point, it seems.  The government can borrow and save
>money at the same time.  The government can borrow and have a surplus
>spending level even.  The government can also borrow to build roads,
>run electricity everywhere, trains, a banking system, and the likes,
>and still have a positive cash flow.  The government could do it and
>cut taxes in half, even.  It simply has to spend less than it takes
>in... :)
>
>
>: -- 
>: ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>: standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>: the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc,soc.college,alt.peeves
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:36:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

>|Would you be more shocked to learn that prostitution is legal here in stuffy 
>|old Britain? It's only *soliciting* that is illegal. What's the difference?
>|How should I know? Solicitors are prostitutes that get caught?

Even stranger is Amsterdam: prostitution is legal, solicitation is
legal, but _renting a room for the purpose of prostitution_ is not.
This latter law is largely ignored, but it is occasionally used to
shut down unclean or unscrupulous brothels.
-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE THEM, CONFUSE THEM)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Summary: Another look  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:51:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.041301.5085@news.acns.nwu.edu>, birdman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Kush)             writes...
>In article <1993Jan21.192342.29373@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>
>>[--dispeptic ranting deleted--]
>>
>>Richard, if you want to make foot-dragging an issue, compare the speed
>>with which Clinton selected his Cabinet with that of Bush.  GHWB took
>>over three months to make his selections.
>>Then, remember how we patiently waited for the man who wanted to be the
>>"education president" and the "environmental president" to take any action
>>with education and the environment.
>>Finally, remember how long it took for the Bush Administration to
>>acknowledge that there is a recession.
>>I can't help noticing that you posted your diatribe less than 3 hours
>>after Clinton was sworn in (20 Jan 1993 20:11:43 GMT).  You in a hurry
>>or something?
> 
>I don't think you can count the speed and directness with which Clinton
>retracted nearly everything he promised and his haste in appointing admitted
>felons as positive qualities.

Speeking of felons, what about Bush's pardoning of felons. Not just felons
that commited illegal acts, but also committed another felony by lying to
Congress. In fact, I think that we can include Bush himself on the felony
list. Implicated by his own diary. Pretty ironic.
> 
>birdman@nwu.edu

-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69098 talk.politics.theory:5715 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13417
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Minor Historical Nitpick (Was Re: National debt is not bad)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 02:33:29 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, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:

>In article <1jnff7INNkg7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>In a previous article, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) says:
>>><In article <1jmdbaINNqbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>>	
>>>	Uh, not since the 18th century have we been a colony.
>>>	And we've not been primarily agrarian since, oh,
>>>	the late 19th century. 
>>>
>>>	A "second-rate agrarian colony" would have been hard
>>>	pressed to win the Spanish-American war, for example.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>       Our military spending is in direct proportion to our 
>>   becoming a world power.  Sorry the analogy was too much to 
>>   handle.  I'll tone it down.
>
>No.  US military spending was a relatively small portion of GNP even
>after American acquired an overseas empire.  Pre-WW1 spending is
>around 1% (I'll get the actual figures if you want.  I don't have them
>handy right now.), and America was quite unprepared to enter the Great
>War.  If you consider 1917 to be when the US became a Great Power, you
>still have relatively small spending.  The US military was
>disassembled after the War, to be rebuilt in the late 30s, early 40s.
>Even after WW2, the military shrank drastically, even though the US
>was the predominant world power.  It wasn't until Korea that the US
>rearmed permanently, as per NSC68.
>

     Sorry, I'm still getting a big laugh out of Russ and Zoe.

     1917.  The U.S. BEGAN capturing markets, leading to the fallout
     of 1929.  Which lead to WWII.  Which lead to the U.S. policing
     the world to protect our trade routes. 


     Japan's next.  Watch.  They've already begun their own aircraft
     projects, to ensure trade routes.  I've seen reports that they've
     been buying up old Russian weapons and arms factories too.

>
>--
><Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
>President."
>			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70068 alt.politics.clinton:21351
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My money's on BILL!
Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:27:33 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, patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) says:

>Broward --
>
>Maybe you should try switching to decaf?

    Sorry, I switched to deflate in 1990. 
    It was the percentage shot.

    COME ON, BILL BABY!!!!   

    Ecopolypse NOW!  
    YES!


>--PLH, and I thought it was bad, growing up during Nixon's reign of error...
>--
>
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh