HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: NPR, Marrou and the U.S. Constitution
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:26:06 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1e14tkINNcmp@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>| Probably more apropos would be Article VI:
>|     Section 2.  This Constitution, and the laws of the United States
>|     which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,
>|     or which shall be made, under the authority of  the United States,
>|     shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
>|     State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws
>|     of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
>| Implicit in this article is the responsability of individuals to follow
>| the laws, and the ability of the laws to constrain freedoms where not
>| otherwise prohibited by the constitution and ammendments.
>
>I disagree.  This Section is specifically relevant to the supremacy
>of the Federal government over the States.  It hardly applies to
>individuals.

Oh, you want to interpret this as "supreme law of the land EXCEPTING ANY
INDIVIDUALS"?  Yes, it is specifically relevant to the supremacy of the
Federal government over the States.  That's EXPLICIT.  I said IMPLICIT.

>Also, the whole point of contention here centers around the words
>"made in pursuance thereof."  I, and the other advocates of my
>postition, argue that the laws of today are not made in pursuance
>of the Constitution, the fact that the bodies created by the
>Constitution disagree with this notwithstanding.

That's nice.  It's good to know that you have the ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION.
I'm positive that as soon as everyone hears it, they will be enlightened,
and with missionary zeal spread this gospel truth that the satanic
government has suppressed lo these 200 years.

So what is your interpretation of "made in pursuance thereof" that will
flush out the past 200 years of lawmaking?  Is it something different than
enacted by congress and signed into law by the president and not found to
be unconstitutional by the supreme court?

Mike Huben

"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it
is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made
to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be
incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation
made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
Thomas Paine in "The Age Of Reason".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:29:04 GMT

mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Labelling standards and terminology that provide real information to
>customers is something NO industry has ever voluntarily provided because
>producers and consumers are adversaries.

Nonsense.  Try to sell a PC without telling customers how much memory or
disk space it has, or try telling it in something other than MB.  You
may find some, but they won't be popular, and won't be in business long.
The same would happen with food labels.  Would you rather buy food
without meaningful labels?  I wouldn't.  Who would?  Certainly not
enough to make it a popular practice among producers.

Regarding "...because producers and consumers are adversaries," what do
you say to someone who insists that the earth is flat?  I give up.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:13:36 GMT

palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>ethnic diversity (e.g. Japan CERTAINLY does NOT), etc?  There are so many
>factors... it is not necessarily the case that we have too many people in
>jail because we have too many laws.  This may be TRUE, but certainly our
>incarceration rate is inconclusive evidence.

>Not meant as a flame.  Just thought that other things ought to be considered
>in the discussion besides incarceration rates.

I didn't mean to imply that the incarceration statistic, by itself,
we should conclude we have too many laws.  The laws against peaceful
activities should speak for themselves.  For example, I can spend as
much money as I want gambling in the state lottery, yet my tax dollars
help the FBI, courts and prisons find, prosecute, and punish citizens
for gambling privately.  Now, given evidence like that, the
incraceration statistic should *suggest* that building more prisons is
probably not the answer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>Tell me the ingredients in your favorite several alcoholic beverages.
>>You can't: it's not on the labels.  Why?  Because they are exempted from
>>labeling laws other than volume and proof.  This has resulted in deaths
>>from allergic reactions (for example, egg albumen is used to clarify some wine,
>>and sensative individuals have died from not knowing such obscure industry
>>practices, which a simple label would reveal.)

Oddly enough, most wines have a label that says "contains sulfites."
Is it legally required?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky alt.politics.marrou:2325 alt.politics.libertarian:1935
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Why Marrou Lost
Date: 20 Nov 1992 23:46:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Greetings,

I like many other libertarians brainwashed ourselves into
believing that Marrou's media exposure would result in a 
Perot-like groundswell and an eventual victory in the
presidential race. The result, as all of us know, was
worse than the vote total of the '88 campaign of Ron
Paul (who had only a fraction of Marrou's exposure.)

On average, we gained downticket and lost upticket.  
We've had a number libertarians elected to local and
state positions, but we had miserable showings in 
the national races. 

The reason why is that the average citizen rules out
candidates who aspire to high positions and at the same
time have no experience in working in a large 
organization (usually govt.) Downticket positions are
easy to win because not much experience is
needed--only ideological resoluteness. Upticket, one 
must show that one can work with other people, and 
this only done by gaining a lot of experience down-
ticket. 

Too many people in the libertarian party start out
very far downticket than make quantum leaps into
running for governor or senator. This is an awful
strategy if you're aiming for governor or senator.
People want to see experience and will only elect
a libertarian to governor, senator, congressman, or
president if that candidate shows he work with others.
I don't mean compromise but work with others to 
push for libertarian government. 

In my opinion, Marrou should have turned down the 
'88 VP nomination and stayed politically active in
Alaska. There he could acquire ten of fifteen 
years in the state legislatures and then try for
a statewide position. Once elected governor,
he could have gained national attention to the
Libertarian Party and then after a good record
as governor try for the presidency. Marrou's lack of
experience is what turned voters off. 

Bernie Sanders, the socialist non-party affiliated 
congressman from Vermont, got elected because of his
former position as mayor. Vermont voters saw
someone who could deal with the stresses of being
an executive. Marrou does not have that image--not
even among most libertarians. 

I would suggest that the libertarians in the New
Hampshire legislature stay there for a while so that
Libertarian Party has a better chance of becoming a
permanent fixture in New Hampshire. Furthermore,
any of them will have a much better chance than 
Miriam Luce for the NH governorship.

Virtually,

Edmund J. Ryan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Marrou/Lord vote totals
Date: 17 Nov 1992 23:21:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


If memory serves, Yiamouyannis is a crank whose particular cause
is opposition to fluoridated water.  (There is an argument that
fluoridation is an illegitimate form of "compulsory medication";
but it doesn't seem like an adequate basis for a Presidential
campaign.)

-- 
Bill Henley, Assistant Sysop, Cleveland Free-Net Science Fiction
& Fantasy SIG (aa396)
From: jwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (john watson)
Subject: Re: Reagan's Policies
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 21:05:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.235856.19561@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jdwatson@nyx.cs.d
.edu (jon watson) writes:
>
>Can anybody help me I need any briefing papers/information relating to
>Reagans policies and involvement in central america
>
>
>Thanks
>
>John Watson
>
>please reply by email to the address in the header.
>
>



I'm having problems with my login at the moment, so could you email

jdw5@ukc.ac.uk instead!

thanks,
           John Watson

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
From: jdwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (jon watson)
Subject: Reagan's Policies
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 23:58:56 GMT


Can anybody help me I need any briefing papers/information relating to
Reagans policies and involvement in central america


Thanks

John Watson

please reply by email to the address in the header.
From: ddrumm@amiganet.chi.il.us (Daniel Drumm)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Ayn Rand
Date: 18 Nov 92 07:44:39 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems


        I am looking for any information regarding clubs, organizations
or any other information including newsletters concerning the work
and life of Ayn Rand. If you have any information about clubs, rare
books and any other collector's items, please leave me email. 


Daniel Drumm      _#      **MMp     g#00   `N##0"    _agN#0P0N#           _#L
                 g##       jN##    j##F     J##    _dN0"      "          g##L
Chicago        _#]##      _0 ##L  jN##F     ###   g#0"                 _03##L
Bulls         gE_j##      #  0## jF ##F    j##F  j##     ______       gE_j##L
3-Peat!     _0"""N##     d"  J##L0  ##F    0##   0##     "9##F"     _0"""5##L
          _gF    ]##    jF    ##0   ##F    ##F   `##k     d##     _gF    j##L
        _g#_    _j##L__g#__   ]N  _j##L_ _d##L_   `#Nh___g#N'   _g#_    _j##L_
       `""""    """""'""""'    "  """""" """"""      """""""   `""""    """"""
Usenet: ddrumm@amiganet.chi.il.us                         Fido: 1:115/300
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:46:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.182256.28168@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1e60aoINNscd@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>>His name was Abraham Lincoln.
>>Next question?
>
>Why do you consider that a good thing? Lincon, without the support of
>a mojority of the people, acted like a strong President and pressed
>for the elimination of slavery. In doing so, he provoked a civil war.
>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.

It's probably the net which makes us oversimplify, I will be guilty of
it here too.  I would say that the Civil War was really about whether
the states were sovereign over the federal government and not that it
was simply over slavery (though this is an issue involved in the 
sovereignty question).

Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1101 alt.society.civil-liberty:6596
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: [misc.legal et al] Re: Military madness (was: Gay Sailor Reinstated)
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:42:31 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

A repost from soc.motss,misc.legal,alt.politics.clinton:

From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Military madness (was: Gay Sailor Reinstated)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 13:38:15 GMT

In article <1e0t7sINNi9t@rave.larc.nasa.gov> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:

>The paper this morning says that even if Clinton issues an executive order
>to repeal the ban on gays in the military, sodomy will remain a felony in 
>the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Apparently that can't be changed by
>something as simple as an executive order.

The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of an airman at Altus
Air Force Base in Oklahoma.  The charge was oral sex with his
girlfriend, in a private home off base.  The punishment was seven
months in jail, a reduction in rank, and a bad-conduct discharge.

I think the brass hats are asking to be screwed over real bad, and I
think we should accomodate them.  Those big pensions are a good place
to start.  It really stinks that the Tail Hook admirals get to retire
with the usual big pension, and guys like this, as well as gays and
lesbians, get screwed by the system.  I say let's screw 'em back.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral votes
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:20:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.203340.5348@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>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:
>>
>>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.

Wow, here I am flaming myself!!!  I wanted to add that, though I am mixing
"founding fathers" in with the current system (and Hans is correct for
pointing out my looseness with this statement), the current system was
implemented to prevent what happened in that 1824 election.  The system
did work again, in spite of the fact that Perot was quite a strong third
party candidate he received 0 electoral votes..

Mike Best

>Mike Best


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:50:49 GMT

> = (Frank Crary) writes:
>> = (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>>Not quite. One of the presidents of the 19th century was elected with
>>less than 40 pct of the popular vote in a four-way race. Most people
>>feel he did a good job anyway--even I agree, and the president in
>>question was a Republican.
>>His name was Abraham Lincoln.
>>Next question?

>Why do you consider that a good thing? Lincon, without the support of
>a mojority of the people, acted like a strong President and pressed
>for the elimination of slavery. In doing so, he provoked a civil war.

Take a history class, and don't waste our school's fine academic standing
by representing it with arrogant statements so lacking in fact.

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, and most historians agree that the South had been angling for
secession since the 1850s.  

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

>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?  Do you think "the
majority" should have kept slavery legal?  Do you wish the Confederacy
would have survived?

Maybe you could clarify whatever the hell your point was.  Thanks.


>
>                                                    Frank Crary
>                                                    CU Boulder
>


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
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 00:59:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.154649.16388@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>It's probably the net which makes us oversimplify, I will be guilty of
>it here too.  I would say that the Civil War was really about whether
>the states were sovereign over the federal government and not that it
>was simply over slavery (though this is an issue involved in the 
>sovereignty question).

Sort of: Everyone agreed the federal government was supreme in certain
specific areas. The question was more whether Jefferson was correct,
in the Kentuck Resolutions: "That the several States composing the
United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited
submission to their general government... and that whensoever the
general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative,
void, and of no force..."

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: news@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca
Subject: <none>
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:46:40 GMT

could someone tell me how i can find the washington
address for the congressman from this district?
please, peply to mc.becon

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1077 alt.politics.clinton:17234 alt.politics.perot:5523
From: tjg2946@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:42:59 GMT
Reply-To: tjg2946@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Comeon!

President Lincoln of course stand by his view of abolishing slavery, but
even though if he had not taken office, there will still be a civil war.
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 15 Nov 1992 17:10:48 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <BxFJ1z.72p@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:

>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!

Not quite. One of the presidents of the 19th century was elected with
less than 40 pct of the popular vote in a four-way race. Most people
feel he did a good job anyway--even I agree, and the president in
question was a Republican.

His name was Abraham Lincoln.

Next question?

andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1090 alt.politics.perot:5542
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:43:13 GMT
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) says:

>In article <BxItyG.6y1@acsu.buffalo.edu> kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
>>
>>I say let's get rid of the system. Why the need for Electoral Voters? I'm
>>sure that our tax money is in some way squandered on the people that cast
>>the votes. After all, don't they have to travel to D.C. to vote?
>
>And I say that you address the relevant side effects of such a change.
>
>1.  Address the effect on the federal nature of our republic.
>    (why do we need states?)
>
Good question.  The federal gov't has usurped most of the powers rightfully
reserved to the states.  This particular power is trivial compared with some of
the others.

>2.  Address the effect on the nature of the campaign.
>    (what will prevent the majority of Whites or Christians from 
>     taking irrevocable control of the Presidency?)
>
Pardon me, but what country are *you* living in?  When was the last time a
non-white or non-Christian person was elected president by the electoral
college?

>3.  Address the subsequent formation of a multi-party system, specifically
>    the prospect that extremist groups will form minority factions and
>    the effect on the Congress.  Yes I said Congress, as soon as the two
>    party system is destroyed at the presidential level I project that
>    the Congress will not be far behind.
>
This would be a good thing, in my view.  Under our current system, anyone
who happens to vote in the minority is effectively disenfranchised...i.e.,
I didn't vote for Charles Grassley, he certainly does not hold views that I
hold, but he "represents" me in Congress.  In a multi-party system, with
proportional representation and voting by party lists, we would see a much
greater diversity of opinion in the legislatures...and this is a good thing.
As a foot note, the winner-take-all two party system is a relic of the
18th century.  I believe the U.S. and the U.K. are the *only* industrialized
democracies which continue to cling to this dinosaur.

>>If the E.C. is eliminated, then our votes will truly count 1 for 1.
>
> If the E.C. is eliminated you will be subject to the tyranny of the majority.
>
I do not see how we are not subject to the tyranny of the majority now.  And I
note that in your previous paragraph you decried the growth of multiple
parties...and here you decry the tyranny of the majority.  Make up your mind,
please.

> You are a constitutional heretic.
>
Oooh....that was a snappy line.

> Mike Best
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution