HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College (was Re: Election of Judges)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:50:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.034834.8921@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.200725.12797@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>If you are suggesting that the majority winner _within_ a congressional
>>district would win an elector then I would have to disagree with this
>>approach.  For one thing it ignores the federal nature of our republic.
>
>I don't see exactly what you mean by this.

Just that the district approach essentially erases State boundaries which
I think are significant in terms of the intentions of the Founders as well
as the political orientation of the people within a State.  Certainly we
are not an amorphous mass of voters, we vary greatly between states.

If you want to do away with the State orientation of the E.C. then 
why do we have such an orientation regarding the Senate?  Why not
do away with this as well?

>>More importantly it would create an environment wherein the candidates
>>could concentrate on populous areas during the campaigns.  That is, a
>>candidate would emphasize urban areas of high population and the 
>>candidate would likely direct his campaign toward those issues unique
>>to urban areas.  This contradicts the current functionality which forces
>>the candidate to gain broad support across the country in order to win.
>
>I think would have exactly the reverse effect: Currently, a candidate
>can concentrate on urban centers and thereby win the all of the
>state's votes (aasuming the urban vote was large enough to 
>offset the loosing rural support.) If the election was on a
>local level, a politician who concentrated on certain districts
>would win only part of the state's electors and risk loosing
>the rest.

Candidates must concentrate on entire States in order to win and I 
submit that this is a good thing.  It forces the candidate to appeal to
people from both urban and rural areas which results in moderate candidates.
Your proposal would allow fringe candidates to enter the race with 
reasonable chances to win AND it would create an environment favorable
to multi-parties.  I see below that you favor the latter but I do not.

I can imagine two scenarios right now.  One candidate concentrates on
urban areas (likely to be a liberal then) and another candidate 
concentrates on white christian strongholds.  In either case the winner
would be a fringe candidate and I find that to be unnecessary.  What you
are talking about is Constitutional heresy.

>>I also question the effect on the two party system.
>
>Hopefully to weaken it, but I haven't considered this subject...

I happen to prefer stability to instability.  If it is not necessary
to change, it is necessary not to change (in the words of JFK).

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution
Keywords: good behavior
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 04:13:33 GMT


    Could someone help clarify the intention (there he goes again... :-) )
behind the words "good behavior" in regard to judicial appointments?  The
Federalist Papers don't seem to say a whole lot, though there is a reference
at the end of number 78 stating the excellence of the British system.
Does the "good behavior" provision hold for courts in England?  What
is the understanding there?

    One thing, by the way, that's alarmed me about the letter of the
Constitution is that a judge could become demonstrably senile, and yet
there doesn't seem to be any provision for removal.


John Rickert
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu



Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:626 misc.legal:18456
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
Subject: Re: US Judicial Review
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:17:59 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <Bvo3C6.JJ9@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) 
writes:
> >Judicial review of statutes for constitutionality in the United States 
> >predates Marbury by about a decade.
> 
> State statutes were reviewed and invalidated, federal statues were
> reviewed and upheld.  Marbury established the power of the SC to
> review and invalidate a federal statute on constitutional grounds.

Not so.  See United States v. Yale Todd, 13 How. 52 (Feb. 17, 1794).  "[T]he 
power to be proposed to be conferred on the Circuit Courts of the United 
States by the [U.S. Congressional] act of 1972 [1 Stat. 243] was not judicial 
power within the meaning of the Constitution, and was, therefore, 
unconstitutional, and could not lawfully be exercised by the courts."

The thing is, US v. Todd was a pretty routine case, not the Presidential 
confrontation that Marbury v. Madison was.  As a result, it didn't get all 
the attention Marbury did, and went unreported until 1851.  But it represents 
the first recorded instance of judical review of a federal statute for 
constitutionality by the Supreme Court.

For a report of an inferior court exercising the same power at an even 
earlier date, see the notes to Hayburn's Case, 2 Dallas 355.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Interpreting U.S. Constitution (was Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:37:50 GMT


   This might be a good place to mention the difference between interpreting
the Consitution literally and interpreting it according to original intent.
From a literal standpoint, the power of judicial review is not granted to
the Supreme Court.  From the standpoint of original intent, however, there
is good reason to believe that the court was meant to have final authority
in pronouncing the meaning of a law:

	Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce
	legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has
	arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a
	superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power.  It is
	urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another
	void must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be
	declared void.  As this doctrine is of great importance in all
	the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the grounds
	on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
						Hamilton, Federalist 78

He then goes on to elaborate (the prose is too lengthy to repeat here)
an understanding of the Constitution that, as far as I can tell, accords
with Marshall's notion: an act contrary to the Constitution is void,
and the Supreme Court has final jurisdiction (juris dictio).  Hamilton
does recognize the possibility of judges' imposing their own desires by
declaring acts unconstitutional as they wish, but he says this merely
proves, if anything, that there should be no judges distinct from the
legislature.


    To capsulize my point, there is little doubt in my mind that the
Framers intended the supreme Court to have the powers enunciated in
Marbury.  How this has worked out in practice is a separate matter.



John Rickert					To seek to be wiser than
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		the laws is precisely what
						approved laws forbid.
							-- Aristotle

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: Re: Not that kind! Re: 3 Branches of Government: Is it time for a change?
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 13:45:53 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Oct9.033836.28838@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1992Oct08.142150.4747@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.053915.6373@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>> Proposing the UK as a model for the US to follow is
>>>pretty scary given the decline of that once great nation.
>>>
>>Are you arguing that the UK declined because of their form
>>of government?
>
>Although not the thrust of my argument, I would say, yes, that the 
>parliamentary form of government is far less able to resist the kind of
>cannibalistic socialism that pervades modern Europe. The parliament
>was not always supreme; once, there was the monarchy and, in a very real
>sense, the US Government was modeled after the British system with the
>executive branch as an elected monarchy. When Britain scrapped its
>monarchy (well, demoted it to figuredom) it did not replace it. To make
>matters worse, the House of Lords (also demoted to figuredom) was also
>not replaced. All political power fell to a single branch of government
>which had absolute and unchallenged power.
>
>>I would argue that the decline was caused by the policies
>>or lack thereof of the government.
>
>The form of government has an enormous impact on the ease which certain
>policies can be implemented. After WWI, there was absolutely nothing
>to stop the Labor party from turning the state against the economy.
>
>Indeed, given that this thread began as a complaint about "gridlock" in
>US government, it seems rather silly to argue that the form of government
>does not matter.

You seem to be quoting me about things that I did not say or write.
I never said that the form of government does not matter.

I argue that within a democracy different forms should be tried 
until we find one most suitable to our taste.  

If you read the rest of my previous post, I wrote that indeed the 
higher level decision between democracy and communism is very important.

On a different note, how would you categorize the governments that 
Japan and Germany have?


-- 
Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.activism et al] USA: more reports from the regime excluding candidates
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:47:42 GMT

A repost from alt.activism,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns:

From: aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert D West)
Subject: Re: Springtime for Honecker (part I)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:41:55 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz


Fischer@li.serum.kodak.com writes:

"If this had happened with Larry Agran, Harel would have flooded the net ..."

I really wish people would stop associating Agran with Harel. Those of us
who supported Agran because his policies seemed like the most rational
post-cold-war proposals to come out of the Democratic primary, and those
in Orange County who supported him because he proved more than equable
in his solving of their problems, and the mayors of the country who unanimously
proclaimed him the candidate who would do the best job of solving the
problems of urban America - we all find the continued association of Larry
Agran with Harel to be as irritating as the LP finds it when people
associate it with Lyndon LaRouche.

That said, I agree that Marrou should absolutely not have been
excluded from the debate. And for the St. Louis police to bar him
from entering the CSPAN studio was obscene, and I hope it went out
over the channel that their guest was being denied entry by a bunch
of armed thugs acting as government officials.

It was wrong to do it to Agran and it is wrong to do it to Marrou.
From: industry@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Mark A Bialik)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.misc
Subject: Etzioni, Amitai
Date: 8 Oct 1992 22:18:07 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30
Originator: industry@convex.csd.uwm.edu

Hello.  I am a graduate student in Poltical Science at the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  One of my research projects for this semester is to
research a book called "Complex Organizations" by Amitai Etzioni.  Does
anyone have any info. on the author or book?  Any help is greatly
appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

Mark A. Bialik
industry@convex.csd.uwm.edu
From: JCG117@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.misc
Subject: australian trade unions
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:58:00 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

i'm currently writing a paper on the political influence of trade unions in aus
tralia .  i would appreciate any info that i can get on the subject. opinions a
s well as facts are appreciated. (if you are giving an opinion, i would prefer
that you are in australia and are seeing the actual impact there.) thanks
in advance for the help.

                             jean....penn state university, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.misc
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 15 Oct 1992 16:30:55 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu


 >> >
 >> >I don't suppose you know why?  Of course not.  You just know how to 
 >> >complain.  If you are too ignorant or lazy to do enough homework on 
 >> >Perot to know why he paid that much in taxes, they lay off.  There
 >> >is a LOT of information on Perot out there - including DETAILED info
 >> >on his wealth.  Go look it up.
 >>
 >>Sure where do I "BUY" the book.....
 >
 >Any book store....its a #1 bestseller since it came out...

Ross Perot bought 100,000 copies to keep it on the best seller list.
I have no reason to read his plan. I could never vote for a hide and seek 
quitter. Face it the media got on him and he cut and ran. 

 
 >>Perot campaign stratagy 
 >>do a TV show
 >>hide from the media and the public
 >>debate
 >>hide from the media and the public
 >>do a TV show
 >>hide from the media and the public
 >>
 >>I guess he still can't handle the heat in the kitchen....
 >
 >He has made his case in his book, for all to read. If I were him,
 >I would ignore the liberal biased press as well - UNLESS they agreed
 >to stick largely with the issues. 

Issues ! he doesn't have any yet, Im gonna fix-it !! Stay tuned !! 
More Later !!
He's just a cheap 1950's ad-man with a big wallet.
He is hiding, just admit it, why doesn't he give his book out if it 
is to help the American People ? It's not like he can't afford it.
I have passed out over two-thousand copies of the Clinton Plan "FREE".

 >Perot is a person who gets things done, instead of our current grid-locked
 >government. Democrats want to spend and spend. Republicans are often locked
 >up with lobbyists. The Congress passes numerous laws but EXEMPTS ITSELF.
 
Perot gets things done by being one of the lobbyist the Rep. are locked up
with. Are you in Texas? if not come down here and look at the School system
he "fixed", it's on the verge of financial collapse.

 >>Any canidate who runs and hides from the media and the people does not 
 >>deserve to be on the same stage as Bill Clinton.
 >
 >Thats your opinion...
 >
 >Have you read Perot's book?

No, it's irrelevant, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

 >If not, you are NOT an informed voter.
 
Thats your opinion...

 >I have read all four platforms and decided on Perot.

You Perot people just might re-elect what we are all trying to unelect,
think about it on the Nov. 3.

-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Make WAR not LOVE
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: york
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:12:39 GMT


In article <IeovThC00iV348e=Q3@andrew.cmu.edu>, Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> That should solve the overpopulation y'all seem to be so worried about. 
>> What's Clinton's e-mail address?  I think I'll send this to him.  Maybe
>> he can discuss in light of Vietnam and Gennifer Flowers


Not only that, it's safer!

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10149 talk.politics.misc:51450 alt.politics.bush:8952
From: pete@edsr.eds.com (Pete Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:43:25 GMT
Reply-To: pete@edsr.eds.com
Organization: EDS Research

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>Clinton wants to raise the tax rate on the "top 2%" *not over $200,000*
>(Clinton is not telling the truth on this when he says he won't
>raise taxes on those making less than 200,000 - his own plan has
>the following:
>Increase rates on top 2%,      
>         raise AMT, surtax on      
>         millionaires              17.8     20.5     21.6     23.0

The 2% number was an estimate of the number of people falling in the 
> 200,000 range.  The Clinton people have repeated time and time again
that his numbers are based on 200,000, not 2%.  When you fill out your
1040, it doesn't ask you if you are in the n% bracket, it is based on
a specific income level.  Clinton's estimates are as well.  You also
ignore the fact that Clinton was asked point blank about who will get
taxed and reiterated the 200,000 figure.

So, Clinton proposes to raise taxes on the top 1.n%.  The 2% number was
just an estimate of the number of people falling in the over 200,000
range.  Their estimate turned out to be quite conservative.

I'm not arguing that Clinton's proposal is flawless.  But we should be
talking about the facts, not echoing misleading campaign rhetoric.


-- 
				
Pete Humphrey
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: October Surprise/Khazakh sells nukes to Iran?
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:10:10 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <14247.2adcf1e1@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> In article <DBROOKS.92Oct14213721@penge.osf.org>, dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>>> Its called Republican campaign strategy.  Luckily its not working,
>>> thought you'll hear a lot of it this month cause its all they've
>>> got left.
>> 
>> If only this were true.  I'm convinced the October Surprise is being
>> prepped, and it'll be pretty nasty.  These Republicans can't be allowing
>> themselves such a bad campaign unless they have a killer revelation that'll
>> make everything else moot.
>> 
>> The suspense...
>> --
>> David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
>> Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
>> Three more months!  Three more months!
> 
> I read in the newspaper today that Khazakhstan has reportedly set up a
> deal to sell 4 nuclear warheads to Iran...
> 
> Hmm, think it might be related to this???

	Yes!!! George Bush flew an SR-71 to Khazakhstan and personally sold
nukes to Iran!!!  All so he could (in two weeks, no less) invade Iran, beat up
some muslims and win the election.

	Hey, guys, get a clue.  He's running his campaign just like he ran the
country.  What's the big surprise?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9885 alt.politics.bush:8746 alt.politics.elections:16260
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:22:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct10.200451.25877@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Kelly.Burns@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Kelly Burns) writes:
> I have an honest question for conservatives that plan to vote for George
> Bush.  Do you believe that while in  Moscow during 1969 that Bill Clinton
> met with and was influenced by the KGB or other anti-American forces?  Do
> you believe that this trip casts any doubt on his ability to be a good
> President?  If you say yes to either or both could you please explain
> the bases for the belief.
> 
> 
> Kelly Burns
> Burns@ipfwcvax
> Burns@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu
> 
> --
>    The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>      North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>         Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>            internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


No to both of the questions. The problem is the same old thing, character,
or lack of it. Why is Clinton not answering questions about Moscow honestly.
I know a lot of you will say that he is, if the answers are honest, why do
they keep changing??

Ken
From: gurd@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Daffy Duck)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Thank you for answering my question! Maybe
Date: 12 Oct 92 07:01:56 GMT
Reply-To: gurd@wam.umd.edu

Kenneth Mitchell writes
> 
> No dispute whatsoever. In fact, Darman is hinting that he'd be the new
> Treasury secretary in a second Bush term, as if we needed any other
> reasons not to vote for Bush! And Bush himself doesn't see that Darman  
and
> Brady are responsible for much of the trouble he's in. 
> 
> I'll probably vote for Bush anyway, because he won't (I HOPE) be QUITE  
as
> bad for the Nation as Clinton would be. but, "the lesser of two evils is
> STILL evil."
> 
> Ken Mitchell
> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Mr. Darman USED to be a  
professor at Harvard Business school and has some pretty serious  
credentials.  And NO ONE who serves as budget director leaves without more  
enemies than friends.  As for Mr. Brady, he was vital in orchestrating Mr.  
Bush's "Initiative for the Americas" which would create a hemispheric free  
trade zone eventually.  Ghee you Republicans attack some of the best  
educated and more moderate members of Bush's team.  No wonder the party is  
being taken over by the far right wing!