From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stop the Carnage NOW!
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:57:48 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <BrrK51.AJx@acsu.buffalo.edu> v026ltr5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty) writes:
> In article <mykes.09ja@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>,
> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes...

[ stuff deleted ]

> >the Supreme Court.  In fact, Article III section 2b states that
> >"In all cases ... in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme
> >Court shall have original Jurisdiction."  Wade was a representative
> >of the STATE of Texas.
>
> Understood. But nobody said the court didn't have the right to
> TRY the case. The question is whether their argument (for want
> of a better word) used the Constitution or natural law.
>

What does it mean to TRY the case?  Rule or not to Rule?  Their
argument used the Constitution, but certain interpretations of
the Constitution were reading things into it that aren't there.
Particularly, the right of the court to decide what is life.

> >> Mike, you're very, very confused. The Sixteenth Amendment quite
> >> clearly gives congress the power to tax incomes. No part of the
> >> constitution mentions regulation of the airwaves. Are you sure
> >> you're looking at the same constitution the rest of us use?
> >Article I secsion 2c.  "Representatives and direct taxes shall be
> >apportioned among the several states which may be included in the
> >union..."  Federal Income Tax is a direct tax.  This is in direct
> >contrast with the 16th Amendmend which rewrote a portion of the
> >constition that existed at the time.
>
> rewrote = amended
>

No, rewrote.  However, the wording in the phrase I mention above
was not changed.  Note that there ARE many phrases in the
original language of the body of the constitution (excluding
amendments) which have been rewritten or removed altogether.
If you need examples, I will gladly provide them.  They are
not interesting, though.  OK, one example:  the words "which shall
be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including
those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding indians not
taxed, three fifths of all other persons."  In other words, taxes
were to be levied by the feds on the states based upon census plus
3/5 of slave count.

> So, now that we have the 16th amendment, you admit that the
> Constitution gives tax power to congress??
>

I say there are two clauses which conflict.  When they added the
13th amendment, they eliminated the 3/5 rule quoted above.  Why
did they not eliminate the direct tax prohibition clause when the
16th was added?  Oversight?  However you look at it, it is rewriting.

> >From my reading of the Roe decision, it is clear that the Court felt
> >that it was a violation of personal liberty to prevent a woman from
> >having an abortion.  There IS a woman who is a US Citizen protected by
> >the Constitution involved.  There is a fetus that is not a US citizen
> >(born or naturalized) involved. The conflict between state laws and
> >constitutional right to privacy made it make sense to have the Supreme
> >Court decide upon the constitutionality of the state laws.
>
> Once again, and I may be sounding a bit too Judge Bork here, but
> the Supreme Court is not supposed to uphold liberty whenever it
> sees it. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on cases arising
> under the constitution. As the 14th amendment grants no substantive
> rights in this area, how can the Court rule on abortion at ALL??
>

I do not claim the court must uphold liberty whenever it finds it,
but the court should not eliminate liberty without compelling state
interest, either.  This WAS argued in the Roe decision.

I also now must say that I find your statement about the Supreme
Court's power to be incomplete.  The Court is supposed to rule on
cases where a state is the defendant, which is the case with Roe.
When the state is the defendant, the court IS ruling on a case that
arises under the constitution.

The question about the 14th amendment before the court was whether
or not Jane Roe had her liberty taken from her without due process.
I agree with you that abortion was not the question really to be
considered, just Ms. Roe's rights to seek one, where available.

> >The Roe decision would have been correct to rule that the state of
> >Texas had the right to determine that a fetus was life or not.  It
> >should have also granted Roe the right to travel anywhere she wanted
> >to get a legal abortion.  It should have also guaranteed this right
> >to enjoy the benefits and priviledges of the state of her choosing,
> >which is her right as a citizen.
> >What it boils down to, Monty, is that I agree with you, but do not
> >follow Jack's reasoning.
>
> Hm... guess I agree with you, too. Sorry for the sarcasm. :)
>

Uh, I saw no sarcasm.  And remember, Rush warns us all not to practice
Sarcasm at home, it's dangerous :)

> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> {                                            | Matthew P. Mason        }
> {          are 'friends' electric?           | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
> {                                            | v026ltr5@ubvms.bitnet   }
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh