ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/24/85)
> To start it off, Edwin Meese as the Attorney General is a JOKE. Just about > any schmuck off the street could do a better job. Example: recently (w/n the > year) he was attacking the Due Process clause of the 5th amendment. > He wanted to pretty much do away with the right to an attorney, ect. His > reasoning? Here is a paraphrase " why should we provide these rights to > people who are under investigation? If they were innocent they wouldn't > BE under investigation." The man simply is a legal fool. > > Meese is an issue that all parts of the political spectrum should agree on. > The sooner he resigns the better. Our basic rights, esp the 5th amendment, > should not be messed with. > > Well? > > Tom Hill Well, tell us what he said, not your interpretation of what he said. And tell us your sources, so that we can verify it for ourselves if we wish. It is indeed hard to imagine that an Attorney General would make a statement such as you attribute to him. It is, in fact, much easier to imagine that he said something else but what he said got changed somewhere along the way.
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (12/26/85)
In article <4740@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> To start it off, Edwin Meese as the Attorney General is a JOKE. Just about >> any schmuck off the street could do a better job. Example: recently (w/n the >> year) he was attacking the Due Process clause of the 5th amendment. >> He wanted to pretty much do away with the right to an attorney, ect. His >> reasoning? Here is a paraphrase " why should we provide these rights to >> people who are under investigation? If they were innocent they wouldn't >> BE under investigation." The man simply is a legal fool. >> >Well, tell us what he said, not your interpretation of what he said. >And tell us your sources, so that we can verify it for ourselves if we wish. I didn't post the original, but the quote attributed to Meese is essentially verbatim. You can check it out yourself in the "Justice Under Reagan" (what an oxymoron) issue of U.S. News And World Report. I no longer have the issue, but the cover date was sometime in October or November of this year. AWR
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/29/85)
> > To start it off, Edwin Meese as the Attorney General is a JOKE. Just about > > any schmuck off the street could do a better job. Example: recently (w/n the > > year) he was attacking the Due Process clause of the 5th amendment. > > He wanted to pretty much do away with the right to an attorney, ect. His > > reasoning? Here is a paraphrase " why should we provide these rights to > > people who are under investigation? If they were innocent they wouldn't > > BE under investigation." The man simply is a legal fool. > > > > Meese is an issue that all parts of the political spectrum should agree on. > > The sooner he resigns the better. Our basic rights, esp the 5th amendment, > > should not be messed with. > > > > Well? > > > > Tom Hill > > Well, tell us what he said, not your interpretation of what he said. > And tell us your sources, so that we can verify it for ourselves if we wish. > > It is indeed hard to imagine that an Attorney General would make a statement > such as you attribute to him. It is, in fact, much easier to imagine that > he said something else but what he said got changed somewhere along the > way. Read some paper media, man! The guy was quoted as saying that the Bill of Rights should not apply to states. This means nothing else but: -- if your enlightened states thinks abortion is bad, it may ban it; -- if your enlightened states thinks habeas corpus is bad, it may introduce detention of suspects made by the sole discretion of your state police; -- etc. The guy provided many times opinions to the Supreme Court which were outrageously out of the bounds of the existing legal doctrine. The guy is tough on crime, unless the criminals happen to be employed by a large broker company. During confirmation hearing, the joke was that he should be ask: "Mr. Meese, can you name a person that lended you any mony and who have not got any federal job afterwards?" The greatest achievement of Meese is war against drugs. It is a classic operation which succeded but the patient died: the price of hard drugs actually dropped. Mr. Meese is loyal, ideological and incompetent. His recent proposal concerning affirmative action had to be blocked by his fellow cabinet members: we are not talking here about some "liberal" chief justices! As far as the remark > Well, tell us what he said, not your interpretation of what he said. > And tell us your sources, so that we can verify it for ourselves if we wish. is concerned, I think that this newsgroup should not be a substitute for reading newspapers. Piotr Berman
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/30/85)
In article <1945@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes of Edwin Meese: >The guy was quoted as saying that the Bill of Rights should not >apply to states. >The guy provided many times opinions to the Supreme Court which were >outrageously out of the bounds of the existing legal doctrine. Until 1925, the Supreme Court had held that when the Bill of Rights said "Congress", it in fact meant Congress, and did not limit the powers of States. Nobody, as far as I know, ever argued that the Bill of Rights itself applied to States. But in 1925 the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment (ratified just after the Civil War) implied that the Bill of Rights' limitations to Federal power were also to be applied to the States. During the Senate debates on the 14th Amendment, a clause specifying that the States were to be held to Bill-of-Rights limitations was specifically rejected. That is, the people who wrote, debated, and ratified the 14th Amendment thought it meant one thing, and the 1925 Supreme Court "interpreted" it to mean something else. This doesn't, of course, mean that States *should* have been left free to do everything the Constitution allowed them to. But let's not get so attached to recent Court decisions that we think anyone who likes the original meaning of the Constitution is stupid or evil. Some people, Meese included, think recent Supreme Courts have subverted Constitutional principle. President Reagan was elected in part because the electorate agrees with him on this. Wouldn't it be pretty silly for his Attorney General to just go along with the Court on everything? >As far as the remark > >> Well, tell us what he said, not your interpretation of what he said. >> And tell us your sources, so that we can verify it for ourselves if we wish. > >is concerned, I think that this newsgroup should not be a substitute >for reading newspapers. If you can't remember where you read it, Mr. Berman, just say so. -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (01/02/86)
>Until 1925, the Supreme Court had held that when the Bill of Rights said >"Congress", it in fact meant Congress, and did not limit the powers of >States. Nobody, as far as I know, ever argued that the Bill of Rights >itself applied to States. But in 1925 the Court ruled that the 14th >Amendment (ratified just after the Civil War) implied that the Bill of >Rights' limitations to Federal power were also to be applied to the States. > >During the Senate debates on the 14th Amendment, a clause specifying that >the States were to be held to Bill-of-Rights limitations was specifically >rejected. That is, the people who wrote, debated, and ratified the 14th >Amendment thought it meant one thing, and the 1925 Supreme Court "interpreted" >it to mean something else. This is utter and complete nonsense. Your reference without documentation to clauses and debates to provide a veil of authenticity is the worst sort of disinformation. To quote the 14th Amendment itself: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If the clause you mention was rejected, it was only because it was so obviously redundant. The Bill of Rights includes "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States", and only the most perverted and dishonest reading of the 14th amendment could allow an interpretation which does not bind the States to the B-of-R. Your implication that the writers of the 14th amendment did not intend it to apply to the B-of-R is extraordinarily dishonest. >This doesn't, of course, mean that States *should* have been left free to do >everything the Constitution allowed them to. But let's not get so attached >to recent Court decisions that we think anyone who likes the original >meaning of the Constitution is stupid or evil. There are plenty of reasons to think that Edwin Meese is stupid and evil. His positions on interpretation of the law are in the extreme minority. His legal capabilities are almost universally held in low regard, even by those who agree with some of his positions. I am surprised that you would embarrass yourself by defending him. Let's not get so attached to our ideologies that we think that the framers of the Constitution or of the 14th Amendment actually would haved liked or respected or agreed with Edwin Meese. >Some people, Meese included, think recent Supreme Courts have subverted >Constitutional principle. President Reagan was elected in part because >the electorate agrees with him on this. Wouldn't it be pretty silly for >his Attorney General to just go along with the Court on everything? There are a lot of people who have stupid opinions about the Supreme Court and Constitutional principle, not based in fact, understanding, or history. Of course they will act in regard to their beliefs. That is why it is important ot expose those beliefs, the flaws in them, and the actions being taken by such people who have achieved power. In regard to this phony "mandate" argument, I would ask what percentage of the cause of people voting for Reagan consisted of them wanting to gut the 14th amendment? .0003? This intellectually dishonest argument, that everything that Reagan does or believes is supported by the American people because they voted for him, is a favorite one of right wing ideologues. When the polls show that, despite the fact that many people voted for Reagan and would vote for him again, they do not generally agree with his policies in regard to economics, foreign policy, military expansion, affirmative action, restriction of freedom of information, abortion choice, teaching of evolution, etc. etc., it is foul and disgusting to justify those policies based on the mere fact that Reagan was elected, as though that gave him a mandate of any sort, rather than indicating that people were confused, misled, beguiled, apathetic, and unenamored by Mondale. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/03/86)
>/* jim@ISM780B.UUCP / 3:32 pm Jan 2, 1986 */ >When the polls show that, despite the >fact that many people voted for Reagan and would vote for him again, they do >not generally agree with his policies in regard to economics, foreign policy, >military expansion, affirmative action, restriction of freedom of >information, abortion choice, teaching of evolution, etc. etc. Which polls show this for his policies on economics, foreign policy, affirmative action, AND etc. etc., Jim? >and disgusting to justify those policies based on the mere fact that Reagan >was elected, as though that gave him a mandate of any sort, rather than >indicating that people were confused, misled, beguiled, apathetic, and >unenamored by Mondale. Apparently, Jim holds American people in high esteem. Can you say SORE LOSER?? >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) Mike Sykora
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/04/86)
>/* jim@ISM780B.UUCP / 3:32 pm Jan 2, 1986 */ >When the polls show that, despite the >fact that many people voted for Reagan and would vote for him again, they do >not generally agree with his policies in regard to economics, foreign policy, >military expansion, affirmative action, restriction of freedom of >information, abortion choice, teaching of evolution, etc. etc. Which polls show this for his policies on economics, foreign policy, affirmative action, AND etc. etc., Jim? >and disgusting to justify those policies based on the mere fact that Reagan >was elected, as though that gave him a mandate of any sort, rather than >indicating that people were confused, misled, beguiled, apathetic, and >unenamored by Mondale. Apparently, Jim holds the American people in high esteem. Can you say SORE LOSER?? >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) Mike Sykora
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/05/86)
> In article <4740@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > >> To start it off, Edwin Meese as the Attorney General is a JOKE. Just about > >> any schmuck off the street could do a better job. Example: recently (w/n the > >> year) he was attacking the Due Process clause of the 5th amendment. > >> He wanted to pretty much do away with the right to an attorney, ect. His > >> reasoning? Here is a paraphrase " why should we provide these rights to > >> people who are under investigation? If they were innocent they wouldn't > >> BE under investigation." The man simply is a legal fool. > >> > >Well, tell us what he said, not your interpretation of what he said. > >And tell us your sources, so that we can verify it for ourselves if we wish. > AWR Here is the exact quote provided in a NYTimes editorial Oct 8,1985: Q. You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't people who may be innocent, have such protection? A. Suspects who are innocent of crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That is contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect. Meese has also claimed that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. All libertarians on this network should be outraged at this contention - without the protection of the Bill of Rights you can kiss our civil liberties goodbye. The Reagan administration has recently prosecuted Samuel Eliot Morrison for leaking documents to the press which the government admitted were already known to the Soviets. This case could be the leading wedge in trying to prosecute reporters or their sources for leaks of information which pose absolutely no threat to national security but could pose a real embarrasment to a sitting administration. Reagan of course has also ordered lie detector tests to be administered throughout the upper reaches of government which even the wimp George Schulz has objected to strongly. The Reagan Administration has supported the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine which allows all groups access to TV time to respond to editorials on TV stations and requires that all sides of issues be presented. The Reagan administration tried to allow all agencies of government to exchange their information but the Congress refused to promulgate this invasion of privacy. One of the greatest hidden stories is this allout assault on civil liberties by the Reagan administration - even as Reagan spouts rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy". tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/05/86)
> > >Some people, Meese included, think recent Supreme Courts have subverted > >Constitutional principle. President Reagan was elected in part because > >the electorate agrees with him on this. Wouldn't it be pretty silly for > >his Attorney General to just go along with the Court on everything? > Chancellor Hitler was elected by the overwhelming majority of Germans. So his actions challenge the German Constitution or the rapcious profits of despicable Jews? Isn't it silly to oppose him? tim sevener whuxn!orb
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/06/86)
In article <3630040@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: > >/* jim@ISM780B.UUCP / 3:32 pm Jan 2, 1986 */ > >and disgusting to justify those policies based on the mere fact that Reagan > >was elected, as though that gave him a mandate of any sort, rather than > >indicating that people were confused, misled, beguiled, apathetic, and > >unenamored by Mondale. > > Apparently, Jim holds the American people in high esteem. > Can you say SORE LOSER?? Golly, I want to play that game too. Can you say CHILDISH GLOATER?? Jim and alot of other people recognize that the American people are just that: people. And as such are fallible, gullable, etc. Are you trying to take the potition that they are decisive, infallible, enthusiastic, etc. about elections? MANY of the people I know said "I hate Reagan and his policies: I just hate Carter/Mondale worse." These were people who (given a different system of elections that would promote numerous candidates [such as the ones detailed in Scientific American a couple of years ago]) would have repudiated Reagan and much of what he stands for. I don't know their numbers, but I have seen polls where I noted that they were a sizeable group. (Can't remember the sources.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (01/06/86)
>Chancellor Hitler was elected by the overwhelming majority of Germans. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Tim, I'm surprised at you. Really! This bit of "folk wisdom" is so blatantly false that I can hardly believe it came from you. First, Germany had a parliamentary system. As I'm sure you know, in a parliamentary system, one votes for a party, not a person. Second, in November 1933, the first time the National Socialist Workers' (Nazi) Party received a majority of any kind in a parliamentary election, Hitler was *already* Chancellor. Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933. Because *no* party had a majority in the Reichstag at that time, President von Hindenburg asked Hitler to form a coalition government. Hitler's first step as Chancellor was to call for a new election. He thought it would strengthen his position. It did, to a limited extent. Nevertheless, the Nazis still won only 44% of the seats in the Reichstag, not a majority. Hitler was then able to manipulate the Reichstag into passing the Enabling Act, which allowed him (among other things) to ban other political parties. By July 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal party. In November, Hitler called for another election. In this one, the Nazis did win an "overwhelming majority" of the seats in the Reichstag. Hardly an overwhelming endorsement of Hitler by the German people. It's hard not to win when you're the only one on the ballot. regards, Charli
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (01/06/86)
[] >Meese has also claimed that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the >States. All libertarians on this network should be outraged at this >contention - without the protection of the Bill of Rights you can kiss >our civil liberties goodbye. If Meese is out to dismantle the Bill of Rights, then he deserves contempt. But, while he may not have been prudent in making such a statement, he was not altogether incorrect. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constiution starts out with, "Congress shall make no law ...". This is the U. S. Congress; no such restriction is mentioned here concerning the State level. If you want protection at the State level, then you should use what is provided in the Constitution of that state. > tim sevener whuxn!orb My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (01/07/86)
In article <464@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes, quoting me: >> >> >Some people, Meese included, think recent Supreme Courts have subverted >> >Constitutional principle. President Reagan was elected in part because >> >the electorate agrees with him on this. Wouldn't it be pretty silly for >> >his Attorney General to just go along with the Court on everything? > >Chancellor Hitler was elected by the overwhelming majority of Germans. >So his actions challenge the German Constitution or the >rapcious profits of despicable Jews? Isn't it silly to oppose him? First, I it's completely false to say Hitler was elected by "the overwhelming majority of Germans". In the last election, the Nazis got about a third of the votes cast. A worse showing even than McGovern. Or Mondale. And I didn't say it was silly to oppose Reagan because people support him. I said it would be silly to expect Meese to oppose Reagan, especially given the fact that people support him. Oh, well. -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/07/86)
> In article <1945@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes of > Edwin Meese: > >The guy was quoted as saying that the Bill of Rights should not > >apply to states. > >The guy provided many times opinions to the Supreme Court which were > >outrageously out of the bounds of the existing legal doctrine. > > Until 1925, the Supreme Court had held that when the Bill of Rights said > "Congress", it in fact meant Congress, and did not limit the powers of > States. Nobody, as far as I know, ever argued that the Bill of Rights > itself applied to States. But in 1925 the Court ruled that the 14th > Amendment (ratified just after the Civil War) implied that the Bill of > Rights' limitations to Federal power were also to be applied to the States. > [...]> > This doesn't, of course, mean that States *should* have been left free to do > everything the Constitution allowed them to. But let's not get so attached > to recent Court decisions that we think anyone who likes the original > meaning of the Constitution is stupid or evil. > > Some people, Meese included, think recent Supreme Courts have subverted > Constitutional principle. President Reagan was elected in part because > the electorate agrees with him on this. Wouldn't it be pretty silly for > his Attorney General to just go along with the Court on everything? > Oho! Recent, means 1925. Thank you. Now, what States should be able to do what they cannot do know? According to Jessie Helms [I read personally a quote, but I do not want to disclose where :-)] states should be allowed to establish religion and forbid abortion. We already know that Administration wants to introduce cencorship applied to (initially?) former and current federal employees. What next? Fair trial? Habeas corpus? > > If you can't remember where you read it, Mr. Berman, just say so. I invoke 5th amendment. [I noticed that you did not question accuracy of my paraphrased quotes about Meese. Why then this cheap shot? ] > -- > Peace and Good!, > Fr. John Woolley > "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal What is in the heart of Reagan and Mease when they want to permit states not to upheld the Bill of Rights? Piotr Berman
pmf@mordor.UUCP (Mike Farmwald) (01/07/86)
> Chancellor Hitler was elected by the overwhelming majority of Germans. > tim sevener whuxn!or In 1933 Hitler won 44% of the Reichstag, in the midst of massive economic upheaval. In 1933, the NSDAP (Nazi Party) was declared the only political party. There were no further elections. Hardly an "overwhelming majority".
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/07/86)
>/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 7:21 pm Jan 5, 1986 */ >Golly, I want to play that game too. Can you say CHILDISH GLOATER?? AS I didn't vote for Reagan, I can't be a gloater -- childish or otherwise. It is quite clear that the fact that Reagan was elected doesn't necessarily justify any particular policy that he pursues. >Jim and alot of other people recognize that the American people are just that: >people. And as such are fallible, gullable, etc. Are you trying to take the >potition that they are decisive, infallible, enthusiastic, etc. about >elections? The point is that many people may have been fooled by Reagan, but where's the evidence that this is so. Today polls still show Reagan is approved of by the majority of Americans. Perhaps they are just gullible, but where's the evidence. The burden of proof must be on those who claim that the American people don't know what they are doing this time, unless, of course, you want to argue that they have been foolish in every election. >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Mike Sykora
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/07/86)
> [] > > >Meese has also claimed that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the > >States. All libertarians on this network should be outraged at this > >contention - without the protection of the Bill of Rights you can kiss > >our civil liberties goodbye. > > If Meese is out to dismantle the Bill of Rights, then he deserves contempt. > But, while he may not have been prudent in making such a statement, he > was not altogether incorrect. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constiution > starts out with, "Congress shall make no law ...". This is the U. S. > Congress; no such restriction is mentioned here concerning the State > level. If you want protection at the State level, then you should use > what is provided in the Constitution of that state. > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > David Olson That is not true, Dave. The 14th Amendment provided that the rights afforded by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment itself would apply to *all Americans* irrespective of State. The reason is quite obvious - if there were not such a provision then the slaveowning states who had just been forced back into the Union by a bloody Civil War would have simply relegislated slavery back into existence. Is this what Edwin Meese wants? If Ed Meese wants to go back to the *original* Constitution before the Civil War, before amendments, before women had the right to vote then he is being the crassest reactionary. The Constitution is a living document which has been amended to extend democracy and citizens rights in its almost 200 year existence. It is contemptuous of what the Constitution stands for to try to turn back the clock to when rights were systematically denied to blacks and women. Worst about Meese's interpretation is that the Bill of Rights could be denied to *all* by his logic. tim sevener whuxn!orb
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (01/07/86)
In article <whuts.464> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> >> >Some people, Meese included, think recent Supreme Courts have subverted >> >Constitutional principle. President Reagan was elected in part because >> >the electorate agrees with him on this. Wouldn't it be pretty silly for >> >his Attorney General to just go along with the Court on everything? >> > >Chancellor Hitler was elected by the overwhelming majority of Germans. >So his actions challenge the German Constitution or the >rapcious profits of despicable Jews? Isn't it silly to oppose him? > > tim sevener whuxn!orb Tim, are you saying that the US has the right to oppose a duly elected and constituted authority if it's in our national interest to do so? I glad to find out that you really do support the President's policy on Nicaragua. -:) -- / / / Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ===/ / /=== ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl ===/ / /=== (215)341-4656 ===/ / /=== CompuServe: 72626,2550 / / / "That's the news from Lake Wobegon ... "
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (01/07/86)
Now and then, someone manages to post a "flame" article so appalling in its ignorance, so intolerant in its tone, and so flagrant in its idiocy that to refute it properly requires more space than the flamer deserves. Such an article is Jim Balter's recent berserker attack (<39000046@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP) on an article I posted on the history of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I apologize in advance for the length of this refutation, and urge you to skip it unless either you're interested in the history of the United States Constitution, or you just like to see arrogant fools shown for what they are. Balter accuses me of posting "utter and complete nonsense", of engaging in "the worst sort of disinformation", of propounding "the most perverted and dishonest reading of the 14th amendment", and calls my statement "extraordinarily dishonest". And so on, and so on, and so on, throwing around phrases like "stupid opinions", "intellectually dishonest argument", and "foul and disgusting". Now the point under discussion is fairly simple, and easy to look up, and well known to all scholars of Constitutional history. (Balter seems not to have taken the time to look it up before calling me stupid and dishonest, apparently trusting his remarkable shallow grasp of legal matters to carry his passionate rhetoric along.) The question is this: Was the 14th Amendment, before 1925, held (by the Supreme Court and the Amendment's framers) to apply the Bill of Rights to the States? I had written: >>Until 1925, the Supreme Court had held that when the Bill of Rights said >>"Congress", it in fact meant Congress, and did not limit the powers of >>States. Nobody, as far as I know, ever argued that the Bill of Rights >>itself applied to States. But in 1925 the Court ruled that the 14th >>Amendment (ratified just after the Civil War) implied that the Bill of >>Rights' limitations to Federal power were also to be applied to the States. >> >>During the Senate debates on the 14th Amendment, a clause specifying that >>the States were to be held to Bill-of-Rights limitations was specifically >>rejected. That is, the people who wrote, debated, and ratified the 14th >>Amendment thought it meant one thing, and the 1925 Supreme Court "interpreted" >>it to mean something else. And Balter answers with this frothy garbage: >This is utter and complete nonsense. Your reference without documentation to >clauses and debates to provide a veil of authenticity is the worst sort of >disinformation. To quote the 14th Amendment itself: [quotes Section 1] >If the clause you mention was rejected, it was only because it was so >obviously redundant. The Bill of Rights includes "privileges and immunities >of citizens of the United States", and only the most perverted and dishonest >reading of the 14th amendment could allow an interpretation which does not >bind the States to the B-of-R. Your implication that the writers of the >14th amendment did not intend it to apply to the B-of-R is extraordinarily >dishonest. Now, first off, if we always included all the references and documentation necessary to substantiate every point made in every posting, the net would have shut down long ago from sheer volume. We all customarily leave things undocumented. A polite person, an honest person, who wanted to challenge the accuracy of someone's "non-included references" would do one of two things. He would either researche the question himself and post an article disagreeing with the original posting, or he would ask the author of the original posting for his references. Balter does neither. He didn't ask me what my sources were -- I would have told him. He didn't even find a textbook and read the appropriate chapters. No, in an area (Constitutional history) in which his ignorance is profound, he just fires off a nasty flame. All he would have had to do is ask a lawyer, and he could have saved himself the embarassment of being made a public example of ignorance, arrogance, and quackery. So herewith a very incomplete bundh of references: (I warned you it would be boring.) From a standard textbook of Constitutional development: "While the Bill of Rights does not restrict state power, the Fourteenth Amendment does. Beginning in 1925 the Supreme Court has held that some of the basic rights protected against federal invasion by the Bill of Rights comprise part of the "liberty" which the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states to abridge without due process of law." (Cushman's _Leading_Constitutional_ Decisions_, 13th edition, 1966, p.74) From a huge article on the whole subject, replete with citations on the original debates in the House and Senate: "In his [Mr. Justice Black's] contention that Section 1 was intended and understood to impose Amendments I to VIII upon the states, the record of history is over- whelmingly against him." (Fairman, "Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? The Original Understanding" in 2 Stanford Law Review 5, 139.) And again: "...beginning about 1925 the Supreme Court began to expand the meaning of the term 'liberty' in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to include some of the rights, i.e. freedom of speech and press, guaranteed by the federal Bill of Rights." (Cushman, p.151) In 1884, the Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, held that the 14th Amendment does not require a grand jury indictment in a state court, even though the 5th Amendment requires it in federal prosecutions. In 1922, the Supreme Court, in Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, stated: "neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states any restrictions about 'freedom of speech'." The first case in which the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion was held to apply to states was Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245, in 1934. Even as late as 1937, the Court ruled in Palko v. Connecticut (302 U.S. 319; 82 L. Ed. 288; 58 Sup. Ct. 149), Mr. Justice Cardozo writing for the majority: "...in appellant's view the Fourteenth Amendment is to be taken as embodying the prohibitions of the Fifth. His thesis is even broader. Whatever would be a violation of the original Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 to 8) if done by the federal government is now equally unlawful by force of the Fourteenth Amendment if done by a state. There is no such general rule. ...The Fifth Amendment provides also that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This Court has said that, in prosecutions by a state, the exemption will fail if the state elects to end it. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 ... The Sixth Amendment calls for a jury trial in criminal cases and the Seventh for a jury trial in [some] civil cases ... This Court has ruled that consistently with those amendments trial by jury may be modified by a state or abolished altogether. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581.... As to the Fourth Amendment, one should refer to Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398, and as to other provisions of the Sixth, to West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258." And I could list hundreds more references. Will Balter hang his head in shame? Will he stop posting his asinine garbage? Will he stop insulting people who really do know what they're talking about? Will he apologize? I doubt it. -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/08/86)
In article <3630043@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: > >/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) / 7:21 pm Jan 5, 1986 */ > > >Golly, I want to play that game too. Can you say CHILDISH GLOATER?? > > AS I didn't vote for Reagan, I can't be a gloater -- childish or otherwise. Ok, I'll spell it out for you nice and simple, so that you understand. Calling someone a SORE LOSER is plain and simple an ad-hominem attack. Just one of your many dishonesties (since you challenged someone else to produce evidence.) I've simply demonstrated that if you want to play that game, others can too. And of course you're wrong: you can be gloating over the discomfort that Sevener (I think) felt about Reagan's policies, or even over the opportunity to call him a sore loser. You can't disprove a position by merely discrediting one possible explanation. And of course that missed the entire point of the "I want to play too." The fact is that Reagan is much more skillful at the "teflon" game than you are: you get stuck. > It is quite clear that the fact that Reagan was elected doesn't necessarily > justify any particular policy that he pursues. It's about time you admitted the premise of Sevener's argument. Your call for specific data was reasonable. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/13/86)
> In article <whuts.464> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >> > >> >Some people, Meese included, think recent Supreme Courts have subverted > >> >Constitutional principle. President Reagan was elected in part because > >> >the electorate agrees with him on this. Wouldn't it be pretty silly for > >> >his Attorney General to just go along with the Court on everything? > >> > > > >Chancellor Hitler was elected by the overwhelming majority of Germans. > >So his actions challenge the German Constitution or the > >rapcious profits of despicable Jews? Isn't it silly to oppose him? > > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > Tim, are you saying that the US has the right to oppose a duly elected and > constituted authority if it's in our national interest to do so? I glad to > find out that you really do support the President's policy on Nicaragua. -:) > / / Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. No, I am not saying that one country has the right to unilaterally interfere in the rights of another. What I am saying is that those who opposed Hitler *in Germany* despite his popular support were entirely justified in doing so. The fact that horrendous policies have popular support (e.g. McCarthyism in our own country) does not make such policies justified morally. We would not take too kindly to Europeans or any other country funding terrorists to kill Americans or blow up economic targets. Yet that is precisely what the contras are doing in Nicaragua. What would be your response if another country mined New York harbor? Would you say such an action was acceptable? If not, then why please justify the mining of Nicaragua's major harbor? tim sevener whuxn!orb
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (01/14/86)
A response to some questions and comments Mr. Piotr Berman asks and makes on Constitutional History. In article <1956@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes, quoting me: >> This doesn't, of course, mean that States *should* have been left free to do >> everything the Constitution allowed them to. But let's not get so attached >> to recent Court decisions that we think anyone who likes the original >> meaning of the Constitution is stupid or evil. >> >Oho! Recent, means 1925. Thank you. Yes, in terms of Constitutional History, 1925 is awfully recent. Our constitution has a pretty involved and continuous history since at least the early Middle Ages. The present written U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1787, but refers to the earlier constitution throughout. The 14th Amendment in particular, referring as it does to the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and their "liberty", cannot be understood except with respect to Justinian, Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the State Constitutions, and so on. 1925 is recent. >Now, what States should be able to do what they cannot do know? >According to Jessie Helms [I read personally a quote, but I do not >want to disclose where :-)] states should be allowed to establish >religion and forbid abortion. There's no reason *under the Constitution* that a State shouldn't establish a religion. (There are plenty of other reasons.) Massachusetts was the last State to disestablish their Church, and that was in 1833, more than 50 years after the Bill of Rights. But I can't imagine any State these days forming an Establishment, can you? Incidentally, the 1st Amendment forbids Congress to make any "law respecting an establishment of religion", either for or against. The Amendment never would have been ratified if the New England States hadn't been certain that they would be allowed under it to keep their State Churches. As for laws against abortion, it takes some pretty, ah, creative reading to find *anything* in the Constitution on the subject. Until 1972, nobody ever said it forbade States to make such laws. (If anyone knows of *any* legal scholar who wrote or court that ruled before 1972 that the 14th Amendment made state abortion laws unconstitutional, please let me know. I've looked, and can't find any such.) And, yes again, 1972 is recent, too. > We already know that Administration >wants to introduce cencorship applied to (initially?) former and current >federal employees. What next? Fair trial? Habeas corpus? The Federal government is clearly bound by the Bill of Rights. What does your comment have to do with States' rights? No State could suspend _Habeas_corpus_, simply because it is indisputably part of the liberty of all citizens, and thus protected by the 14th Amendment. And most of what is usually meant by "fair trial" is as well. >> If you can't remember where you read it, Mr. Berman, just say so. >I invoke 5th amendment. >[I noticed that you did not question accuracy of my paraphrased > quotes about Meese. Why then this cheap shot? ] Hardly a cheap shot. You quoted (or paraphrased, or misquoted) Mr. Meese. Somebody asked for the references, and you wouldn't give them. I didn't know whether the quotes were accurate or not, and I was hoping to get you to tell us where you read it. How could I challenge the accuracy of a quote of unknown origin? >What is in the heart of Reagan and Mease when they want to permit states >not to upheld the Bill of Rights? Possibly simply a love of the Constitution, which does not impose such restrictions on the States. The Constitution is, in essence, a treaty between sovereign States, who agree to give up much of their sovereignty to a Federal government. But when the Federal government tries to seize more of the sovereignty than the States gave up, I don't see that it's necessarily evil to try to restore the former balance. As a quick aside, your postings would be far easier to read and understand, and probably far more effective rhetorically, if they were proofread better. Nobody expects perfection, but lines like >Now, what States should be able to do what they cannot do know? could be corrected. -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "Compared to what I have seen, all that I have written is straw." -- St. Thomas
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/18/86)
> Yes, in terms of Constitutional History, 1925 is awfully recent. Our > constitution has a pretty involved and continuous history since at least the > early Middle Ages. The present written U.S. Constitution was ratified in > 1787, but refers to the earlier constitution throughout. The 14th Amendment > in particular, referring as it does to the "privileges or immunities of > citizens of the United States" and their "liberty", cannot be understood > except with respect to Justinian, Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, > the State Constitutions, and so on. 1925 is recent. > > >Now, what States should be able to do what they cannot do know? > >According to Jessie Helms [I read personally a quote, but I do not > >want to disclose where :-)] states should be allowed to establish > >religion and forbid abortion. > > There's no reason *under the Constitution* that a State shouldn't establish > a religion. (There are plenty of other reasons.) Massachusetts was the > last State to disestablish their Church, and that was in 1833, more than > 50 years after the Bill of Rights. But I can't imagine any State these > days forming an Establishment, can you? > To the contrary, there is a movement to require prayer in public schools, which presumes that everyone should believe in a Deistic religion. One can imagine easily some state, say NC, to establish a principle that a public employee must believe in God. > Incidentally, the 1st Amendment forbids Congress to make any "law respecting > an establishment of religion", either for or against. The Amendment never > would have been ratified if the New England States hadn't been certain that > they would be allowed under it to keep their State Churches. > > As for laws against abortion, it takes some pretty, ah, creative reading > to find *anything* in the Constitution on the subject. Until 1972, nobody > ever said it forbade States to make such laws. (If anyone knows of *any* > legal scholar who wrote or court that ruled before 1972 that the 14th > Amendment made state abortion laws unconstitutional, please let me know. > I've looked, and can't find any such.) And, yes again, 1972 is recent, too. > One may note that it usually takes some time after formulation of a set of principles to find a particular conclusion from these principles. Otherwise mathematicians (and judges of the Supreme Court) would have nothing to do. > > We already know that Administration > >wants to introduce cencorship applied to (initially?) former and current > >federal employees. What next? Fair trial? Habeas corpus? > > The Federal government is clearly bound by the Bill of Rights. What does > your comment have to do with States' rights? > It provides some hints to the intentions of the Administration. > No State could suspend _Habeas_corpus_, simply because it is indisputably > part of the liberty of all citizens, and thus protected by the 14th > Amendment. And most of what is usually meant by "fair trial" is as well. As you noted, the notion of "liberty" is explained by previous acts, English Bill of Rights. Why not American Bill of Rights as well? > >> If you can't remember where you read it, Mr. Berman, just say so. > >I invoke 5th amendment. > >[I noticed that you did not question accuracy of my paraphrased > > quotes about Meese. Why then this cheap shot? ] > > Hardly a cheap shot. You quoted (or paraphrased, or misquoted) Mr. Meese. > Somebody asked for the references, and you wouldn't give them. I didn't > know whether the quotes were accurate or not, and I was hoping to get you > to tell us where you read it. How could I challenge the accuracy of a > quote of unknown origin? > I still think that it was an "inexpensive" shot, since you did not question the fact, but indeed you referred to the same fact yourself (i.e. Meese opinion that the Bill of Rights is not aplicable to states). It was not the case that you could not challenge me because of not knowing the alleged source, but because you KNEW that it was true. > >What is in the heart of Reagan and Mease when they want to permit states > >not to upheld the Bill of Rights? > > Possibly simply a love of the Constitution, which does not impose such > restrictions on the States. The Constitution is, in essence, a treaty > between sovereign States, who agree to give up much of their sovereignty > to a Federal government. But when the Federal government tries to seize > more of the sovereignty than the States gave up, I don't see that it's > necessarily evil to try to restore the former balance. > Confederates were also motivated by the love of the Constitution. But we know that there were other motives as well. Similarly, Reagan made promises concerning abortion and school prayer to religious right, which in turn delivered quite substancial number of votes and political funds. > Fr. John Woolley Piotr Berman
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (01/21/86)
From John Woolley (cisden!john): >A response to some questions and comments Mr. Piotr Berman asks and makes >on Constitutional History. > >In article <1956@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes, >quoting me: >>> This doesn't, of course, mean that States *should* have been left free to do >>> everything the Constitution allowed them to. But let's not get so attached >>> to recent Court decisions that we think anyone who likes the original >>> meaning of the Constitution is stupid or evil. >>> >>Oho! Recent, means 1925. Thank you. > >Yes, in terms of Constitutional History, 1925 is awfully recent. >[various reasonable arguments in support of this excised for brevity] Point taken. The law is big on tradition; by some measures, even our Constitution is a relative novelty. Still, 1925 is before most of us were born. We've all grown up with the idea that the Bill of Rights is binding on the states, and I think most of us like it that way. Even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that a legal justification could be made for applying the Bill of Rights only to the Federal government, that only answers a technical criticism of Meese's remarks, it doesn't make them any less dumb. If the Bill of Rights is a sensible restriction on the Federal government, why is it not desirable to put the same restrictions on the states? I can think of a lot of reasons that the Feds may have found it uncomfortable, undesirable, or impractical to make the states abide by the Bill of Rights until the late date of 1925, but none of these reasons are very idealistic, and none make very good reasons for going back to the old system. >>What is in the heart of Reagan and Mease when they want to permit states >>not to upheld the Bill of Rights? > >Possibly simply a love of the Constitution, which does not impose such >restrictions on the States. The Constitution is, in essence, a treaty >between sovereign States, who agree to give up much of their sovereignty >to a Federal government. But when the Federal government tries to seize >more of the sovereignty than the States gave up, I don't see that it's >necessarily evil to try to restore the former balance. Isn't this answer a bit ingenuous? You'll have to go back a bit farther than 1925 to get legal support for the notion that the states are *truly* sovereign; maybe the Articles of Confederation ;-). At minimum, it's safe to say that the issue had been decided with finality by 1865. But, legal technicalities aside, Berman's asking why the Reagan administration supports these legal theories, and you're claiming it's some abstract love of states' rights. Why is it only when conservatives have *other* reasons to dislike a Supreme Court decision that the cry of "States' Rights" is heard? I don't mind conservatives using states' rights as a legal argument in court when it gives them the best chance of winning, but it strains my credulity when they claim that this is really, truly their only reason. There's no doubt that some decisions are best made locally or regionally, not nationally. But with something as basic as the freedoms guaranteed to all of us in the Bill of Rights, what argument can there be against applying these safeguards against abuse of power to all levels of government? Is whether the Feds should have the power to enforce something like the Miranda decision on the states the *real* issue, or is it that some people just don't like the decision, itself, and will use states' rights as a weapon to cripple it, as a convenience and a forced compromise? I repeat Berman's question: what can we deduce about Meece's goals, given his remarks? If you persist in claiming it's only an idealistic commitment to states' rights, I'll persist in suspecting someone's trying to pull the Woolley over our eyes :-). - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry