HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Status-based Law is Alive and Well
Keywords: Flesh and Blood
Organization: The Devil's Advocate
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:51:18 GMT

In <19604@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>We have seen here in "misc.legal" the argument that Status-based law
>is a relic of the Middle Ages, on its way out, an anachronism.  Well,
>that's not so in Maryland.

>Just today, Governor William Donald Schaefer proposed to the Maryland
>General Assembly a bill that would hold parents of minor children
>liable to pay child support for those children's children.  That is,
>these grandparents would have to support their grandchildren solely
>because they *were* their grandchildren.  That's an obligation based
>on their Status as flesh-and-blood grandparents of their flesh-and-blood
>grandchildren, not on any "contract" or "consent," or even upon their
>having committed any "intentional" or "negligent" tort.

This certainly isn't "status based law" in the sense that legal
historians understand it.

In the middle ages, virtually all of your rights and duties relative
to the rest of society were determined by an arbitrary status that was
imposed on you at birth, or which you acquired through an
extraordinary event (such as being knighted or entering the
priesthood).  The whole idea of status-based law was that every
individual had a particular role to play in the grand scheme of
things, and rights and duties of a person of a particular status were
defined to make sure s/he played the correct role.

The law you have described is nothing like that.  It simply requires
individuals to pay for social costs which they (in the opinion of the
legislature) have proximately caused.  Parents are already responsible
in many states for certain torts caused by their minor children.  This
is just an extension of that principle.  

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:01 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
Summary: Religious freedom must apply *especially* to Error.
Keywords: AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <19571@smoke.brl.mil>,
 matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes...
>How about the Evolutionists?  At first, only Creationism could be taught
>in the public schools.  It was prohibited by law to teach Evolution 
>there, as the Scopes "monkey trial" demonstrated.  One would think 
>that once Evolutionists won the right to have their doctrine taught 
>in public schools, they would be the most tolerant of letting Creation
>be taught there also.  One would think that those whose ideas had been
>suppressed would be least likely to go about suppressing the ideas of
>others.
> 
>But that's not what happened.  What happened was that as soon as the
>Evolutionists had gained power, they proceeded to use Federal lawsuits
>to ban Creationist teaching from the public schools.  It is a natural
>tendency for someone who believes he has the Truth to want to suppress
>the teaching of what he thinks is Error, and the Evolutionists succumbed
>to that natural tendency.  Hypocrisy?

Correction:  Most of the evolution lawsuits of the 80's were constitutional
challenges to various statutes purporting to promote "Balanced treatment" of
creation and evolution in public school biology curricula.  The problems are:

1.	As was determined in Arkansas, there is simply insufficient
non-religious material to create a curriculum if you wanted to.  The official
who was assigned had to resort to such publications as Readers' Digest.  I
don't think that makes for a good science education.
2.	Most creationists, including those at the movement's intellectual
center, the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, were quite open about
the religious, and specifically literalist Judeo-Christian, aspects of their
beliefs.  There is a serious Establishment issue.

I advise you read Nelkin's _The Creation Controversy_.  It includes an account
of the Arkansas hearing, after which several evangelists without substantiation
accused the state Attorney General of collusion, and the Louisiana statute 
struck down in _Aguilar_, and a discussion of the failed attempt in the 70's to
introduce a nontradition social studies course into the Ithaca, New York,
public schools.  It should cure you of your accusations of one-sided
intolerance and explain why creation does not belong in science class.

							Daniel Reitman
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: fornication
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Sin taxes
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:57:24 GMT

In <qZqNXB4w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) says:
>wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>> In article <19573@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writ

>> >1)  Does this decision make fornication a Constitutional right?

>> 	It already is, Matt.  "Pursuit of happiness" and all that,
>> y'know.

>The Preamble has no force of law. It is dicta --a preface and nothing more.

First of all, this is the Declaration, not the Preamble.

And secondly, my Con Interp professor might dispute this just a little.
He argues that the Constitution and the constitution are not necessarily
the same thing.  The constitution could be said to consist of the
Declaration, the Federalist, and other documents as well.  And, I suppose, 
if you believe Gary Wills, the Gettysburg Address.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re:  Right to Wear Religious Articles in Private Companies/Schools
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:11:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.235433.1022@dragon.com> cms@dragon.com writes:
> Hi, I have a question, and I hope this is the right newsgroup for it. 
>Several years ago, when I worked for another company, I was asked by 
>my immediate supervisor to remove my Rosary from around my neck.  When 
...
> My question is:  Should this matter ever come up again, what are my 
>rights?  Can a company require a Catholic to remove what is generally 
>regarded as a Catholic religious article, but decline to insist that 

There have been court rulings; the supreme court ruled the U. S
Air Force can prevent an orthodox Jew from wearing a yarmulke - not
even a religious article (more later).   The  U. S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio refused to allow an Indian Sikh to
be sworn in as a witness because he refused to remove his turban; it
was never challenged.  The policy of the U. S. Capitol Building is
to refuse admittance to the Gallery (but not the floor) of the
Senate to anyone whose hair is covered in any way.
____

Cindy's statement above doesn't say if she is Catholic or not.
She has stated in other groups she is not Roman Catholic, which
might be what casual observers think Catholic might mean. However,


...
>statement?  Can companies actually require all employees to remove all 
>religious articles, including yarmulkes, for example?

By yarlmuke, I assume you mean the skull cap worn by many Jews,
either all the time, or for specific occasions.  A yarmulke is just
a skull cap, period.  It is not a religious article, has no more
holiness than a bagel, can be treated with a good deal of disrespect
(thrown in the garbage when well worn, for example, can be painted
or crayoned on, and in general is no more than another article of
clothing.)   Perhaps that's why courts have had no qualms banning its
being worn.
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: kckbxr@next10pg2.wam.umd.edu (Robin of Locksley)
Subject: Re: executive orders
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:27:16 GMT

> 	3. end to ban on gays in military
> 
> The reports on this issue that I heard last year said this would require  
an
> act of Congress.  Would a Clinton order preventing enforcement of the
> anti-gay regulations be illegal?
> I'm not looking for a discussion of whether any of these actions are  
good or
> bad, but I have no idea where Clinton gets the legal authority for them.
>     John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)

No, President Clinton can issue an executive order to end the ban on gays  
in the military.  Congress has the power to approve/disapprove such an  
executive order.  In reading today's Washington Post, it appears as though  
such an executive order would be defeated by Congress.  It stated that  
there would be aprox. 30 votes in favor of such an executive order.  A  
president's executive order is much the same as a bill from Congress.  It  
has to get the approval of the other to become official.  BTW, should  
President Clinton push the executive order (w/o Congressional approval),  
then Congress could potentially pass an amendment forbidding gays in the  
military.  I just finished reading today's issue of the Washington Post  
and found it quite informative...didn't know all that yesterday. 

Bill
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Purchasing a Horse
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:40:23 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

linda@linda.intel.com (Linda Harbin) writes:

> 
> My girlfriend sold her 6-month old filly last summer.  In the sales contract,
> she specified that the buyer had to give her first refusal if/when he ever
> sold the filly.  Last night, we found out the filly is for sale, and he has
> yet to offer the filly to my girlfriend.  Since it was in the contract, does
> she have any recourse?  Can she make him offer the filly to her first.  What
> if he sells the filly to someone else without ever mentioning it to my friend

From what you write, he is only thinking of selling the filly.  He probably
only has to offer her the filly when he has an offer from someone else.  From
what you say, he is not at that stage -- he is at the stage where he is
trying to get offers.

As far as what happens if he does sell it to someone else without offering
it to your friend first...I don't know.  Are fillies fungible?  My *guess*
would be that she might be able to sue to cancel the sale and force him
to sell to her (and the other buyer could then sue him for breach of
contract), but I'm just guessing -- all she might be able to do is sue for
the difference between what he sold the filly for and what it would cost
her to buy a comparable one, which might be nothing if he managed to get
a good price.  Any remedies gurus out there?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Craig...
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:37:28 GMT


In article <1jmi2sINNk68@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu>, 
csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) said:

> > > I am not upset about routine overdraft protection. But those whose
> > > overdrafts amounted to ten of thousands, well beyond their
> > > "line-of-credit" is plainly irresponsible.  [craig edward smith]
> >
> > No, voting for an budget which contains agricultural subsidies
> > amounting to tens of BILLIONS which amount to welfare for the
> > obscenely rich is irresponsible.  Overdrafting in the tens of
> > thousands doesn't even compare.  Worry about the direct things, and
> > not the side issues.  [David Marc Nieporent]
>
> So you admit that congress spends irresponsibly? (Don't make me cite
> welfare, medicare/medicaid, and social security fraud examples) The
> house bank was symptomatic. And believe me when I tell you that if I
> were to overdraw my bank account in the amount of tens of thousands of
> dollars with a wink from the bank, both I and the bank would be in
> *big* *big* *big* trouble.

Craig, can you cite one posting by David Marc Nieporent in which he
_denied_ that the congress spends irresponsibly?  If not, you're looking
an awful lot like a desperate and/or incompetent attorney who tries to
make the other side's expert witness look bad on the stand by asking him
something like: "So, Doctor, you ADMIT that you've been practicing
medicine for over twenty years and have examined literally HUNDREDS of
people with knee injuries similar to the one my client has, isn't that
right?  And you further ADMIT that you are on the teaching staff at
Harvard Medical School and regularly lecture and instruct on the topic
of knee injuries, don't you?  Don't try to deny it, Doctor -- it's all
there in the record!"

And for all your yelling, you _still_ haven't explained how the House
Banking "scandal" is symptomatic of anything, or why it's a scandal, or
where any taxpayer money was misused, or how it's irresponsible to write
a check that you know won't bounce, or how differences between banking
services available to you and those available to congressmen constitute
or are evidence of any sort of irresponsible behavior or wrongdoing by
any congressmen.

Free advice from a third-year law student, Craig: don't ever try to
become a prosecutor.  At least, not unless I get to be the defense
attorney.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:27:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.232704.27278@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com  
(aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

[deleted]

> studies ever conducted on this topic (which discusses this phenomenon),
> see
> 
> "Dividing the Child:  Social & Legal Dilemmas of Custody"
> by Mnookin and Maccoby

My ABA Journal just arrived with a review of this book.  The review states that  
the book fails to find sex discrimination in the award of custody by the  
courts.

Also reported that of 1,100 divorces studied, only 1.7% are contested so as to  
require a judicial determination.

Bad review? Or does the study weaken your arguments?
--
Tim Hollingsworth
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Keywords: AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power
Date: 19 Jan 93 01:13:24 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan15.184050.21761@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe) writes:
> Yes.  You are so right. This is *horrible*.  The Catholic Mass is a sacred,
> holy time.  The Catholics are worshipping their OneTrueGod, and their choice
> of religious beliefs should be respected.
> 
> But, if this holds true, it HAS TO HOLD TRUE FOR *EVERYONE*.
> 
> So, the next time wiccans are practicing *their* faith, worshipping their
> God/desses (who, btw, they believe in just as much as Catholics believe in
> their OneTrueGod...), please don't interrupt their services.  Don't take away
> and profane their holy items.  Don't assume that just because their faith is
> different from yours, that it is wrong.

If they did so, they would be subject to arrest.  At least in California,
the laws against disrupting religious services apply to ALL religions.
Does anyone know of any examples otherwise?

> My biggest gripe with *SOME* Christians is that they want religious freedom
> to preach their faith --- and then want that same freedom to be denied to 
> other faiths.  How hypocritical.
> 
> LAR

Can you give some examples?  I've never seen any in my lifetime.  I've 
seen examples of how the liberal enthusiasm for the War on Drugs has 
been used against peyote users.  Christians weren't the reason for that.

I've seen examples of how liberals have used their power to suppress
Christianity (Soviet Union, most of its satellites, prohibitions on
voluntary prayer in public schools).



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Judges "making" law [was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)]
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:43 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <C17o28.Dr4@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes...
>In <1jllbnINNm2t@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@carson.u.washington.edu sez:
>>rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:       
>>>So, in other words, legislators pass what looks and smells like "law", 
>>>but which isn't "true law" until it comes out of the judicial     
>>>crucible.                                                       
>> 
>>When Jose Canseco hits a baseball out of the park, do you say he hit a   
>>home run, or do you wait until he rounds the bases and the umpire signals
>>the run before you classify it as a run?
> 
>If it's George Brett, I wait to see whether he used too much pine tar.

If I remember correctly, didn't the Commissioner's office (yes, it did exist
then :-) ruled that failure to challenge a bat before the pitch was a waiver. 
With the corked-bat accusations a few years ago things got a bit more difficult
and rules were issued allowing a challenge system.

							Daniel Reitman
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-conception Tax
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:58:57 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:

>Now, Mr. Darcy's tax won't do anything to help the junkies or the 
>unfortunate victims of bad blood.  But notice that about a third
>of female victims get AIDS from "heterosexual contact." ...
>the very relationships that Mr.
>Darcy's tax would tend to discourage.

>In plain, simple language, discouraging fornication will save
>girls' lives.  Ken Darcy's proposed tax will save girls' lives,
>and for that reason alone, I support his proposal.

I find it interesting that you think a tax will discourage 
fornication behavior whereas the life-threatening disease 
fails to do so.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station (Schenck v US)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:53:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.113431.24288@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>The English Court of Equity and the federal courts under Article III
>>both have jurisdiction over (i.e. the power to hear and rule on) such 
>>cases. But jurisdiction doesn't say anything about how such cases are
>>to be determined, simply that the court may, in some way, rule
>>on them.

>To rule on those cases is to make law. It cannot be avoided.

That really just hides the question: If you insist on refering
to everything from defining minor terms and specifying slightly vague
phrases to completely repealing statutes as "making law", then 
you are simply side-stepping the issue. To what extent can 
judges "make law" (to use your hopelessly unclear terminology)?
I hope you will agree that a judge can not simply invent, out
of nothing, a law to fit the circumstances. Somewhere, you have
to draw a line between a judge filling in details in the process
of interperting and a legislature passing completely new laws.
Why are you so resistant to distinguishing between the two?

>>In the case of the Court of Equity, this included making
>>Common Law. Since the Constitution specifically gives the federal
>>courts "judicial" power but _no_ "legislative" power, I conclude
>>that the federal courts may not create law (a legislative power)
>>in order to settle cases.

>Frank, both the law and the equity courts in England made law. 
>If you are saying the Framers intended to give the federal courts
>*less* power than they had in England, you are flying in the face of even
>the most conservative legal and historical scholarship.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with English law. I'm quite sure _some_
of the framers wanted to give the federal courts less power than
the English courts (since several of the framers didn't want a
federal court system at all.) Perhaps you are thinking of 
Alexander Hamilton, who certainly did want a powerfull federal court,
but Hamilton wasn't exactly a middle-of-the-road, "average" framer:
He was an extreme advocate for one side of the debate.

>And when you say "I conclude" here, you're engaging in just the kind of
>result-oriented interpretation that you'd criticize a judge for.

Since my conclusion was based on the text of the Constitution, and
the definition of "legislative power", and not any result, I don't
see why you say this.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: Renegade Police and illegal tickets...REGISTER
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:46:14 GMT

This author presents a few questions:

1. Does the race of the alleged thug firing upon the Ford Escort have relevance
in the legal query?

2. If the race does not have any relevance, then why was it mentioned?

My mini-treatise may be explained by these questions.  I believe that the 
answers are "no" and "I don't know" respectively.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mwhhlaw!tim (Timothy E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Making law (was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station)
Reply-To: uunet!mwhhlaw!tim
Organization: Martin Wade Hartley & Hollingsworth
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:16:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.041940.1487@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU  
(Frank Crary) writes:

> Actually, I'm insisting on a semantic point becuase I'm opposed to 
> activism: The distinction between interperting law (filling in the
> details, defining vague phrases, etc...) and making law (that is,
> things beyond the scope of existing law, altering the meaning of
> existing law, etc...) helps to distinguish and highlight activist
> rulings. If you mix these meanings (i.e. use "interpert" and
> "make" interchangably) activism becomes less clear, and sounds
> more reasonable.

I am lost.  Until last year, the duty of care owed by an owner of real estate  
to a visitor depended, in part, upon the classification of the visitor.  Thus,  
a business invitee was owned an higher duty of care than a trespasser.  This  
was the common law of the state.  There never was a statute on any kind on the  
point.  Last year our supreme court changed these rules.  Did the court make  
law?  Of course.  So what?
--
Tim Hollingsworth
Xref: sparky misc.legal:23180 talk.politics.misc:69418 alt.president.clinton:1746