HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Mandatory Sentences/Michigan (was: U.S. Bill of Rights today)
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:35:11 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <RFB.92Sep14144043@H.cs.cmu.edu>, rfb@CS.CMU.EDU (Rick Busdiecker) 
writes:
> n article <1992Sep11.011505.22445@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> 
KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu 
> writes:
>    >		AMENDMENT VIII:
>    >	Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
>    >nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>    >
>    >		REALITY VIII:
>    >	In MI, simple possession of over a given quantity of a controlled
>    >substance REQUIRES a manditory sentence of life WITHOUT PAROLE.
> 
> 	Again, overturned in the Michigan Supreme Court.  Thankfully not yet
>    overturned by the WoD, but don't get your hopes up yet.
> 
> Do you have a reference for this?  I believe that your claim is false
> and that mandatory sentencing laws are still in force in Michigan.

Mandatory sentences may still be legal in Michigan, but they must be 
proportional to the crime.

The US Supreme Court Case was Harmelin v. Michigan, 111 S.Ct. 2680 (1990).  
In it, the court held that the life imprisonment sentence for a small amount 
of cocaine was not cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the 8th 
amendment of the US Constitution.

A prior case had held that having a sentence that was disproportionate to the 
crime was cruel and unusual punishment.  This case called that into question, 
but did not overrule it.  Two justices (Scalia and Rehnquist, as I recall), 
said that it was a bad test and should be overruled.  (I think) three other 
justices said that it was a good test, but that in this case, the sentence 
was not disproportionate, and therefore was not cruel and unusual.  Four 
justices (the minority) said that it was a good test, applied it and would 
have held the sentence to be cruel and unusual.

As a ruling by the highest federal court on an issue of interpretation of the 
federal Constitution, the opinion is binding upon the states.

However, in People of Michigan v. Bullock, 440 Mich. 15, 485 N.W.2d 866 
(1992), the Michigan Supreme Court faced a similar issue, and went the 
opposite way.  The Michigan court grounded its decision in a clause of the 
Michigan Constitution.  While acknowledging the US Supreme Court's Harmelin 
decision, and agreeing that it was bound to accept that court's 
interpretation of the federal Constitution, the Michigan court siezed on a 
clause in the Michigan Constitution prohibiting "cruel or unusual" 
punishment.  They found the use of "or" rather than "and" in the clause 
afforded Michigan citizens additional protection from the state government 
beyond the protection from the state and federal governments which was 
afforded them by the 8th Amendment.

Joe Bob says check it out.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,rec.nude
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:49:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.122736.27647@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, symanzik@egr.msu.edu (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
> 
> > And yet the word "God" appears no where in the body of the 
> > Constitution
> 
> You'll likely dismiss it but since we are getting picky about words -
> I just noticed that after the end of article VII of the Constitution 
> it does say:
> 
>     "in the Year of our Lord"

Carl Kadie:  pay me.

> This is a Christian nation founded by Christians.

Sigh.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:32:49 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>Honestly, I prefer such abuses to judicial activism: It puts the
>debate into a factual (and somewhat objective) context.
[...]

Can you give some examples of what you consider judicial activism?
(Different people seem to mean different things.) What is your opinion
of judicial review? The 9th and 10th Amendments?

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:43:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.152540.698@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> kandt@ai-titania.JPL.NASA.GOV (kirk kandt) writes:
>Not only is it one of the most abused but a NY senator has proposed
>legislation to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Legislation can't repeal an amendment, so why is he wasting his time?

Funny thing about the bill of rights:  they were only intended to limit
the powers of the Federal government only and that is as it should be.
States could (and to some extent still can) do whatever they want.  For
example, they could and did support religion with tax money.  It has
only been in this century and then only by virtue of the 14th amendment
that the Bill of Rights has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to
apply at the state level.  The Civil War marked the beginning of the
end of state's rights, the Supreme Court in the 20th century marked the
end.


>"To disarm the people - that was the best and most effective way
> to enslave them ...."

Was being the key word in the above quote.  There are much better ways
now.

>"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason
> for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
> resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Most American citizens wouldn't know tyranny if it bit them in the ass,
and fortunately for the federal government,  it's those people who are
the strongest supporters of the 2nd amendment.

Cheers,
    -Ken K
-- 
Ken Konecki
e-mail:kenk@sdc.com    -or-    ...!uunet!tellab5!sdc!kenk
"I just found out that the brain is like a computer.  If that's true,
then there really aren't any stupid people.  Just people running DOS."
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5729 alt.politics.usa.constitution:26
From: msh9848@hertz.njit.edu (Matthew)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:57:16 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep10.191834.14992@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.234625.10454@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.225040.27403@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu
>(Roger Dubbs) wrote:
>
>Obviously in your example, freedom of speech (Amendment I) is violated.
>I'm not so certain it is in my case.  The government can certainly prove
>that the publisher possesses the pictures.  Is he not then the most


The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. This guarantee has 
been stretched to the limit.  

  As far as I see it, 

Speech != writing
Speech != Art
Speech != Music
Speech != burning things in protest. 

Speech means using the vocal chords to spread a message by sound. 

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of expression in any form. 
Therefore child pornography is not freedom of speech. 

Perhaps the constitution should be changed to include Freedom of Expression, 
however it does not say that now. 


Matt
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:12:23 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <1992Sep10.205716.15655@njitgw.njit.edu> msh9848@hertz.njit.edu (Matthew) writes:
>
>The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. This guarantee has 
>been stretched to the limit.  

Since you're obviously not too familiar with it, the first amendment says

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>  As far as I see it, 

Well, I guess we all know that you don't see too well, eh?


>Speech != writing
>Speech != Art
>Speech != Music
>Speech != burning things in protest. 
>
>Speech means using the vocal chords to spread a message by sound. 
>
>Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of expression in any form.

Well thank you for your words of wisdom.  I guess, since you seem adamant
to insist on *only* the very most *literal* interpretation of the
Constitution, that you also read the first amendment to disallow *any*
restrictions on free *speech* (and press).

In other words, I can say or print whatever I want, no matter how damaging
it may be to you or anyone else, and you will support my right to do so,
and you will oppose any laws that restrict that right in any way.
 
>Therefore child pornography is not freedom of speech. 

No.  By your reasoning, it is only freedom of the press--which is also
protected under the first amendment.  So I guess you are now prepared to
fight for my right to publish child pornography, right?


>Perhaps the constitution should be changed to include Freedom of Expression, 
>however it does not say that now. 

This doesn't follow.  The best you could argue by your line of reasoning is
that the *first amendment* doesn't say that.

Of course, there's still the ninth amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and the tenth amendment,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."

You have to, at least, demonstrate that freedom of expression is not
protected by these, using your same literal interpretive techniques, for your
argument to be at all coherent.  (And note, coherent <> correct!)


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:38:13 GMT

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>By the way, in Finland there's a "followup right" - ie. if a paper
>says something about you, you have the right to "post a followup" on
>an equal place.
[...]

According to what I remember from _Freedom, Technology, and the First
Amendment_ by Jonathan W. Emord (1991):

As you would expect, involuntary follow ups are usually demanded by
politicians.

In the U.S., the government can't make newspapers print such follow
ups because that would violate the newspaper owner's free expression
rights. This is true even if the newspaper is the only major newspaper
in the local market.

In the U.S., the government *can* make broadcasters show such follow
ups. The rational for this is:
  1) broadcast bandwidth is scarce,
  2) so it is best held in trust for the public,
  3) and the trustees of the broadcast bandwidth (i.e. the government)
     believe that the public interested is best served by overriding
     broadcasters free expression rights so that people who are
     criticized on TV and Radio (i.e. usually government officials)
     can respond.

(I personally disagree with all three points.)

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:31:01 GMT

smp@gtech.com (Sergio M. Pedro) writes:

>	*note* drugs are illegal.

>>	Peyote use among the Native Americans: Banned.

I suggest that you examine history with regards to communion wine
during Prohibition. Can you say "double standard"?

>         *note* murder (see human sacrafice) is illegal

>>	Satanic worship: Subjects the participants to potential sanctions
>>			 by the child protective services even if no laws
>>			 are violated.

Actually Witches, pagans, and Wiccans get the same treatment, and it
has *nothing* to do with murder being illegal. (Human sacrifice is 
rarely a part of even Satanist groups, and not at all of the others.) 
Get your facts straight.

>>	Religious influence on political structures: See the Republican
>>			 			     Platform.

>        * ok * I'll agree somewhat with your statement here.  The USA is
>	not "technically" (sp?- sorry) a "Christian" nation.  It is however,
>	a nation who's many foundations are in the Judeo-Christian theology.

And I quote George Washington:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on
the Christian Religion."

I can supply similar quotes from Jefferson, Adams, Franklin...

>>	Establishment: Statement by the President (who is sworn to uphold
>>		       the Constitution) that atheists aren't citizens or
>>		       patriots; this is a Christian nation.


>        * note *  Crimes against children, including child porn are not
>	covered under freedom of speech.

>>	Free Speech: Censorship of adult materials.

Adult material covers a *lot* more ground than "child porn". Check into
the research a few groups have done. The US government is the major supplier
of "kiddie porn" and is probably responsible for much of the demand!


-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Organization: 22nd Century Artisans
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 10:21:09 GMT

dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>Sexual acts against children should certainly be illegal.
************:^^^^^^^

Against ANYONE would be rape or similar, yes?

I suppose I'll get my ass kicked (at), but here goes:

If we lived in a sexually-oriented society, can imagine a coffee-table
book that had pictures of adults in sexual relation to children.
Presumption is they are doing something worthwhile and human-positive.

The meaning is what we define. Currently we define that children, in
essence, are NOT sexual creatures. We-all seem to think that the way
we see things NOW defines reality. We are so denied around sexuality
that it >seems< to be 'obvious' re: children. I was sexual as a child.
If I ended up myself being denied around it, it was because it made my
mother extremely uncomfortable. It was her problem, but I picked it up.

When I was about 8, I walked out of my bedroom naked only to encounter
the laundress, I'll guess about 15. I recall I was embarrassed about
being naked and seen by her; yet at age 8 I also knew I was really
interested in her too. If she and I had had sex then, I think I'd be
much happier now. There's no question I understood what was "going on."

We charge sex with being "non-innocent". I never thought so, but I had it
reinforced to me from EVERYWHERE. They were NOT my values, they were the
values of those around me. I had my innocence stolen from me by a society
ashamed of sex.

Damn stupid. The "way things are" is not the truth of human nature.
The truth of human nature would be to allow children to do what THEY
wished to explore and to do it without >judgement<. My bet is we would
be far more sexual and far more psychologically healthy. When sex itself
is allowed its own nature it will seek its own level, but that level is
damn different than what we live now. Now, we are challenged always to
make a judgement about significance. This is silly, because our sexual
nature is not a rational act. [syntax] Let the body lead and the mind follow,
and we will be a healthier race of people. I trust human nature if allowed
to pursue its own course in a loving world.

-ecsd
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:34:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.145532.1027@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

Lots of horrifying stuff concerning breech of our Bill of Rights deleted.

Now, I'm not the most articulate person around, but I want to write
letters to my Congress critters.  My problem is how do I sumarize this
wealth of information that was presented here so that I don't bore
the reader into tossing the letter?  I know that form letters are out,
so I would have to be careful how I write the letters.  I want to get
this mess under control before we have to use the second ammendment to
get control of the gov't (1/2 a :-).  Who would be the best recipients of these
letters?  Lets see, our Congress reps, state legislators, anyone else?
In particular, the war on drugs has me worried (no, I don't use drugs).
There is just way too much abuse of power going on here.

 - les

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Dazix, An Intergraph Company	uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester
Huntsville, AL			(205) 730-8537

There are three kinds of people in the world:
Those who can count, and those who can't.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5787 alt.politics.usa.constitution:99
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:24:39 GMT
	<DLB.92Sep9094205@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
	<1992Sep9.152540.698@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Sep11.144313.14322@sdc.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

In article <1992Sep11.144313.14322@sdc.com> kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki)
writes:

   Legislation can't repeal an amendment, so why is he wasting his time?

Legislation is the first step in the constitutional amendment process.
The bill is introduced to propose an amendment.  It must pass by a
two-thirds majority in both houses.  After this, three-fourths of the
state legislators must also pass the same bill.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Judge puts restrictions on Channel One
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:06:28 GMT

According to a UPI article from Sept. 10th: "A Superior Court judge
ruled Wednesday that Channel One, a controversial educational TV
network that runs commercials, can be aired at a local high school,
but placed tight restrictions on its use."

Before this, students were required by law to watch Channel One's
commericals (i.e. they are required by law to go to school and
the school required them to watch the commericals).

"Judge Jeremy Fogel said Channel One could be used if the teachers
were notified in writing that they did not have to use the it, if
parents were informed their children were viewing the network and if
the school set up quiet zones where students could study if they
choose not to watch the broadcasts."

- Carl


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:5821 alt.politics.usa.constitution:131
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Who's free'er
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:30:48 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.

In article <1992Sep9.230805.3325@ducvax.auburn.edu> fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>
>Perhaps you haven't read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
>lately, but this doesn't seem to equivocate to me:
>
>>                            Article 19
>>      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
>> this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
>> and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
>> media and regardless of frontiers.

Yes, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is quite strong and
unequivocal.  Of course, that's all on paper.  In the real world, the
UDHR means absolutely nothing, as it's provisions are routinely ignored
by virtually every government, and there ain't nobody around to "universally"
enforce it...


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:55:43 GMT

In article <ritter.716479300@claude> ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>>...The US government is the major supplier
>>of "kiddie porn" and is probably responsible for much of the demand!

>A thought just occurred to me:  If the above is true, could the RICO
>laws be used to hoist the government by its own petard?  In other words,
>could RICO be used to charge George Bush with heading up an organization
>that makes and distributes child porn?  That would be an interesting
>case!

Bush couldn't be (that would require impeachment), but the Postal Service
could certainly be charged. But don't wait for this to happen: I really
doubt any government agency would every charge another with a crime...

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty