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, 6 Oct 1992 21:19:37 GMT

In article <BvAvA7.58L@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> capn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Steve Thurston) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.180517.16004@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>In article <tal691.717389416@huxley> tal691@huxley.anu.edu.au (Tonio Loewald) writes:
>>>Why have electoral colleges at all. Why not just count the votes?
>>
>>Because direct democracy is extremely dangerous.
>
>Direct election would not be direct democracy.  If you had every citizen vote
>on whether or not to go to war with France this year, THAT would be an example
>of direct democracy.  As it is, a president is elected, and HE decides 
>whether it is in the interest of the United States to go to war. etc. etc.

But what we are talking about is direct election of the president. 
To abandon the E.C. would radically change the fundamental structure of the
Constitution by removing federal constraints on the power of the presidency,
therby increasing it's power.  The power of the presidency would be increased
in relation to congress under any plebiscitary democracy.

Frank is correct in what he is implying (he is not saying that direct election
produces direct democracy).  He is pointing out that direct election allows
for the creation of majority factions (e.g. Whites or Christians - both are
real possibilities) in determining presidential elections.  Direct election
or some such approach is constitutional heresy that changes the balance
of power.  The Founders wisely recognized the inherent dangers of democracy.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.individualism,alt.politics.civil-liberty
From: capn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Steve Thurston)
Subject: Re: Electoral College (was Re: Election of Judges)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:58:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.180517.16004@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <tal691.717389416@huxley> tal691@huxley.anu.edu.au (Tonio Loewald) writes:
>>Why have electoral colleges at all. Why not just count the votes?
>
>Because direct democracy is extremely dangerous.

Direct election would not be direct democracy.  If you had every citizen vote
on whether or not to go to war with France this year, THAT would be an example
of direct democracy.  As it is, a president is elected, and HE decides 
whether it is in the interest of the United States to go to war. etc. etc.

>>electoral colleges -- were everyone to vote as expected TODAY. Isn't
>>franchise more important than an obsolete gesture to state's rights?
>
>Where did state's rights come from? It has nothing to do with the 
>issue. 

You seem to have a different understanding of the electoral college than me.
While the elecorates are indeed free to pick who they choose, the fact that
the number of electorates is not directly proportional to each State's
population, from what I understand, was put in place so that small States, 
who feared that their low populations would make their votes meaningless,
would have a greater sway in the election of the president.


-- 
Steve Thurston
capn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu   ...or...   capn@PURCCVM.cc.purdue.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:43:38 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Oct6.033312.4743@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED) writes:
>	What if the electoral college decided to elect someone 
>besides who the people of the country voted for?

They have: James Polk in 1844, with just under 50% of the popular vote,
Zachary Taylor in 1844 with 47.5%, James Buchanan in 1856 with 45%, 
Abraham Lincon in 1860 with 40%, Rutherford Hayes in 1876 with 48%,
James Garfield in 1880 with 48.3%, Grover Cleveland in 1884 with 48.5%
Benjamin Harrison in 1888 with 48%, Grover Cleavland in 1892 with 46%,
Woodrow Wilson in 1912 with 42% and in 1916 with 49%, Harry Truman in
1948 with 49.5%, John Kennedy in 1960 with 49.7%, and Richard Nixon in
1968 with 43.7%.

In 14 out of 51 elections, a majority of the people voted _against_ the person
the electoral college made President. Several of those 14 Presidents
are often listed among our "best" Presidents.

> Do you have any idea the uproar this would cause? Can you imagine the
>riots that would happen? Do you realize how many people would get killed?

I don't believe there was any rioting in the above cases.

>This is not idle speculation. If someone got elected by say 60% of the
>votes, but the Electoral College had lied (as all politicians do) and 
>instead elected the loser, the people wouldn't stand for it.

They have, though it was more like 52% of the people voting for the looser.

>	What I'm saying is "Let the people make their own 
>mistakes". If they elect the wrong person, then they will get what 
>they deserve. If you try to mother the populace, then you will fail.

I still don't see why the electoral college is "mothering" any more
than having a Congress is: Both are delegating a choice to representatives
who have can take the time to consider issues and be informed about the
choice they are making. If the electors weren't elected, it would be
a different matter...

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.individualism,alt.politics.civil-liberty
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College (was Re: Election of Judges)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:07:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.011923.3531@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.170643.6293@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>>I think an interesting method would be to elect electors at large over
>>the whole state.  Choose five or something.  You would be voting for
>>electors, not for president. 
>
>Other possibilities include election of one elector by each
>congressional district and two by state wide election (forbiding 
>Congressmen from acting as electors would be a good idea...)

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.
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.
The result is moderate candidates rather than fringe candidates because
only moderates have a real chance to win (thus stability).

I also question the effect on the two party system.

Mike Best

"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change"
  -JFK
			
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Separation of Church & State
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:18:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.123549.3099@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>Here's a good question for you and/or anyone else who may be reading
>     this.  If a legislature (federal, state, etc.) passes a law
>     knowing such a law is unconstitutional (whether before they
>     passed it or after being told of it by the courts), 1) who 
>     has the power to consider such a law unconstitutional...

_Anyone_ has the power to consider a law unconstitutional (the people,
after all, have the freedom to think whatever they like...) However,
as a practicle matter, most people's opinions don't matter much...

>     2) who has the power to make sure such a law is unenforcable, 

Anyone in government, to the extent of their legal powers: Courts
may refuse to convict anyone, on the basis of an unconstitutional
law. Law enforcement officers may refure to arrest anyone under
such a law, etc...

Practically speaking, the people in charge of the branches of government
have the real power (the Supreme Court will ultimatly hear appeals of
such cases and be able to impose _their_ opinion. The President may
hire or fire federal law enforcement officers or order them to 
ignore a law he considers unconstitutional.)

In general, the public _expects_ everyone in government to go along 
with the Supreme Court's opinion on the subject. So there is _alot_
of political pressure on everyone else to support the Court.

>     and 3) do those who may have suffered because of the law 
>     deserve just compensation for their suffering?

That would really depend on the nature of the law and the nature
of the suffering.

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jill@super.org (Amelia L. Scott)
Subject: Re: Is asking one's religious preference forcefully constitutional?
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:25:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.060848.16793@seas.smu.edu> kayaalp@seas.smu.edu (Mehmet M. Kayaalp MD) writes:
>I am wondering whether the USA constitution protects people's privacy
>in terms of religious belief or not. I've seen that in the registration 
>form of my University (SMU at Dallas Texas) the religious preference is 
>questioned without any "not available" option. 

Well, Mehmet, you can do what the typical US citizen does when we find 
that questions on forms are too personal--leave it blank.  I don't 
believe that they can demand this as a qualifier for a job or a student 
slot.  

>I am not a US citizen, and do not know US constitution at all. However, 
>I guess the privacy in terms of beliefs and thoughts should be 
>protected in a country where the phrase ,"this is a free country," is 
>pronounced so frequently. In many places of Europe, you cannot question 
>that even ordinary people. I really am surprised that it is asked 
>university students without any hesitance.

Since it is a form from a a university, that information should be
voluntary.  Most universities receive federal funds to operate.  The 
government is supposed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race,
sex, religion, creed, etc..  I suspect that SMU is gathering this
information to prove to the government that they are not just allowing
only Methodist ministry students into the school (The US doesn't fund
seminaries to my knowledge).   There is a Privacy Act in the US that 
prohibits dissemination of any information gained on school, job,  
or government forms.  If you are worried about the University targeting
you for harrassment based only on these forms, I wouldn't be too 
concerned.  And if you are worried about the government targeting you,
then don't worry so much.  They allowed you a visa in, so unless you
commit a crime there won't be any problems from them--except the typical
visa update hassles that all foreign students go through (INA tends to be
an inflexible lot).

>mehmet
>-- 
>Mehmet M. Kayaalp, M.D.     
>Computer Science Department  
>Southern Methodist University 

Jill Scott-Piner

"My employer probably doesn't approve of anything that I think."

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: US Judicial Review (was: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:21:41 GMT

tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:

>In article <BvMMqy.7uD@world.std.com>, srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) 
>writes:
>> That is not what we are taught.  We are taught that since Marbury v.
>> Madison, the other two branches have grudgingly accepted the role
>> of the judiciary as reviewer of constitutionalily. 

>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.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.235751.4900@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes...
>demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.) writes:
>I'm certain you're wrong. I'm especially certain that a publications
>are not required by law to take all ads. So, we are at an impasse. Can
>you find a reference to the law or regulations (postal)?
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Yes, I'm certain, also.  Of course, I could be wrong.
I will attempt to find a referance.  Any lawyer types
out there got a suggestion of where I should look?

	DEmon.
	Who could be wrong,
	But doesn't think he is.





Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: The Courts and "De Facto Law" (was Re: Separation of Church & State)
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:59:51 GMT

In article <BvAuw0.3Ev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, capn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
(Steve Thurston) writes:
 
> In a more legal vein, if an unconstitutional law is passed and then exposed
> as such, the law is nevertheless the law, and there probably couldn't be
> any recourse beyond nullification.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
 Marbury vs. Madison

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
 be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
 Miranda vs. Arizona

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes
 no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
 contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
 Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the
 form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
 ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
 time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so
 branding it."

"No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are
 bound to enforce it."
 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177
      late 2d, Sec 256


Gee, I don't think I could say it any better... ;-)

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
From: demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:08:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.044840.19589@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, 70465.203@compuserve.com writes...
>davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:
>>you free air time. If they refuse to sell you access at the same rates
                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^
>>as anyone else, that's censorship.
> 
>No. If they refuse to sell you space that's editorial privilege. It's

The phrase "same rates" is very important.  _ALL_ publications and broad-
cast media are required to have posted rates.  They are REQUIRED to charge
everyone the same rate.  No matter what!  It's true that they don't have
to give you free airtime/page-space, but they can't deny you the right to
buy an ad for exactly the same price Billy Joe Bob's Car Farm paid.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen)
Subject: Re: The Third Branch (LONG)
Organization: The Department For Doing Departmental Things
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:50:00 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:
>
>>I guess it depends on the goal.  The court could be slightly less
>>subtle, and force Amendments to the Constitution.
>
>Can they? What if the President and Congress simply refuse to accept 
>their ruling? The only thing to stop them is public opinion. If the
>Court ruling was sufficiently major (say, that all federal welfare programs
>are unconstitutional), there might be little public pressure to obey
>the ruling. 

I think you underestimate the opinions of the public.  I think the President
and Congress would be hard pressed to just publicly ignore the opinions
of the court.  We've been raised with the idea that ours is a constitutional
democracy based on a trialateral balance of powers.  For the President and
Congress to ignore the court would be essentially to say that the courts
don't matter.  If the public perceives them as saying that, then what's
to say that they might just ignore other parts of the Constitution just as
well?

Besides, the President and Congress don't have to ignore the rulings of
the courts to get what they want.  They can just encourage the passing of
amendments to fill in the holes that the court identifies.  Of course, to
do that would force a public debate on these issues, which may be more then
they are willing to do.

-- 
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)

"...the only thing worse than being hurt is being bored." -- Daniel Mocsny
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: The Third Branch (LONG)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:00:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.041414.12282@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>Which leaves the real problem of how the Court could (probably
>subtly and gradually) actually apply the Constitution.

I guess it depends on the goal.  The court could be slightly less
subtle, and force Amendments to the Constitution.  A sweeping ruling
isn't particularly needed, just case-by-case rulings on the extent of
the power of congress.  Of course, a precedent would be set, which would
snowball the country into a constitutional crisis.  But I think that
enough time would have passed, that the amendment process could be
begun.  If the States ratify the necessary amendments, the government
would be constitutional again.  If they do not, then the support the
court needs would come from the States themselves.  

In reality, I suppose the court would suddenly find itself tripled in
size.  Oh well, so much for theories!

/Roger






Newsgroups: alt.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:16:52 GMT

demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.) writes:

>In article <1992Sep13.044840.19589@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, 70465.203@compuserve.com writes...
>>davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:
>>>you free air time. If they refuse to sell you access at the same rates
>                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>as anyone else, that's censorship.
>> 
>>No. If they refuse to sell you space that's editorial privilege. It's

>The phrase "same rates" is very important.  _ALL_ publications and broad-
>cast media are required to have posted rates.  They are REQUIRED to charge
>everyone the same rate.  No matter what!  It's true that they don't have
>to give you free airtime/page-space, but they can't deny you the right to
>buy an ad for exactly the same price Billy Joe Bob's Car Farm paid.

Would someone please check this with a lawyer? I seem to recall hearing
that the New York Times had outright *refused* to sell some group a full
page ad back in the 70's. (There were political aspects to the ad, but
still...)

-- 
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.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, 26 Sep 1992 20:18:13 GMT

demon69@zeus.tamu.edu (DEmon, CEO of Hell.) writes:

[...]
>The phrase "same rates" is very important.  _ALL_ publications and broad-
>cast media are required to have posted rates.  They are REQUIRED to charge
>everyone the same rate.  No matter what!
[...]

Are you sure about publications? I know that the FCC has all sorts of
controls on broadcasters, but I don't think there are similar controls
on publishers.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:426 alt.individualism:5582
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.individualism,alt.politics.civil-liberty
Subject: "fantasy reworking of the Constitution"
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:46:42 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep25.154450.5617@ils.nwu.edu> fano@ils.nwu.edu (Andy Fano) writes:
>One fantasy reworking of the constitution I've toyed with in my head
>is having the Congress continue as it is, the Supreme Court pick
>presidential candidates, and Congress votes for them.

While we are on the subject, what about reducing the President's powers
and giving the rest (say, especially the veto) to a Council of elder
statesmen (say all unimpeached former Presidents). That would give
us Ford, Carter and Reagan (since I assume Nixon would be impeached
before being allowed to take _any_ office...) Their votes wouldn't
have been too different from Bush's choices, except that they wouldn't
be subject to political pressure.

(Of course, this would require an amendment, but hypothetically, how bad of
an idea does this sound?)
    
                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution