cb@zitt (Cyberspace Buddha) (02/04/91)
congressional bill would suspend constitution, declare martial law
(from mondo 2000, winter 1991)
A new bill, HR 4079, co-sponsored by Representative Newt Gingrich and [*Texas*
] Senator Phil Gramm, would open the way for American concentration camps to be buil
t, and thereafter permit the state to round up _suspected_ drug users and force them
to work without compensation for the state.
The bill proposes suspending the Constitution for five years so that millions
of illegal drug users could be held by the state in concentration camps. All interne
es would be forced to work and if anyone is caught with drugs in the camps, they wou
ld have one year added to their sentence each time -- with no right to appeal.
HR 4079 calls for declaration of a five-year national state of emergency -- in
essence martial law. It proposes reopening the Japanese Internment Camps used durin
g WWII, using active and inactive military bases as prisons, and instituting a new p
rivately owned prison system as well. To aid in accomplishing this, the 4th Amendmen
t, the 8th Amendment, and habeas corpus are to be either superseded, redefined, or d
isallowed. A provision has been built in to allow the government to purchase goods m
anufactured by prison slave labor. To ensure the duration of this labor force, all p
revious maximum sentences would be changed to minimum sentences. New mandatory sente
nces would be applied, and probation, parole, and suspension of sentences revoked.
To provide an even greater pool to draw from, mandatory drug testing of just a
bout everyone above junior high school level has been included in the bill. However,
the resolution carefully avoids addressing the necessary funding.
Although press releases regarding the bill were sent out to all the national a
nd local news outlets by the Maryland Libertarian Party, there has been practically
no mention of this bill in the media. The state evidently is hoping to sweep this b
ill into law right under our noses while we are all preoccupied with other events ta
king place around the world.
Everyone needs to make phone calls and write letters. Direct your corresponden
ce to the media and your representatives as well as Gingrich and Gramm. If they don'
t think you care about this bill becoming law--it will! Act now or cry behind the ba
rbed wire later.
(reproduced from the July 1990 Libertarian Party NEWS)
[Mondo 2000's] Editor's note: The number of the bill, once again, is HR 4079 and thi
s report is NOT exaggerating. Look it up.
Argh... Sorry 'bout the formatting
Note: Mondo 2000 is *not* a libertarian junk mag. It's main concern is
the use and rights of those that use Cyberspace. That means you if you
can read this.
I am very interested in any news on this subject. Please send to me
whatever you may know about this.
Thanks, and you're welcome.
Cyberspace Buddhaedp@jareth.enet.dec.com (Eric Postpischil (Always mount a scratch monkey.)) (02/05/91)
In article <5RDuw1w163w@zitt>, cb@zitt (Cyberspace Buddha) writes about HR 4079.
HR 4079 is dead, or at least comatose. It died in the last Congressional
session and the author says he does not plan to reintroduce it. When it was
active, I typed in the full text. Anybody who would like a copy should send me
mail.
-- edp (Eric Postpischil)
"Always mount a scratch monkey."
edp@jareth.enet.dec.comjprice@jove.cs.pdx.edu (James Price) (02/06/91)
Someone posted ill-formatted text about a bill, the rabid HR4079, and
here's how to get your own copy free right now!
HR4079 is old news really. Here is an old post from OCT 19 showing you
where to ftp the complete body of the text from:
(thanks to Rich Thomson, the original poster!)
***************************************************************************
From pdxgate!tektronix!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utah.edu!thomson Fri Oct 19 21:53:24 PDT 1990
Article 2075 of alt.drugs:
Path: pdxgate!tektronix!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utah.edu!thomson
>From: thomson@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: HR4079 available on-line
Summary: FTP to think.com; cd libernet; get HR4079.Z
Message-ID: <1990Oct16.160010.28092@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 90 22:00:10 GMT
References: <130039@pyramid.pyramid.com> <3690@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct12.212536.20919@unicorn.wwu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Utah, SLC, UT
Lines: 49
Some kind soul has made the text of HR4079 available by FTP. Please
do not ask me to mail it to you; I don't have the time.
-- Rich
cs:/u/grad/thomson 1> ftp think.com
Connected to think.com.
220 early-bird.think.com FTP server (SunOS 4.1) ready.
Name (think.com:thomson): anonymous
331 Guest login ok, send ident as password.
Password:
230 Guest login ok, access restrictions apply.
ftp> cd libernet
250 CWD command successful.
ftp> ls
200 PORT command successful.
150 ASCII data connection for /bin/ls (128.110.4.21,2315) (0 bytes).
total 914
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 149426 Aug 8 01:45 HR4079
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 49644 Aug 8 01:52 HR4079.Z
drwxrwxr-x 2 1295 wheel 512 Aug 8 03:28 LibertyEcho
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 1129 Aug 8 03:00 README
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 staff 117564 Oct 11 23:53 frederic-bastiat-the-law
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 staff 49333 Oct 12 02:08 frederic-bastiat-the-law.Z
drwxrwxrwx 2 1295 staff 512 Oct 12 02:09 incoming
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 82943 Jul 28 02:37 index-on-liberty.txt
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 40097 Jul 28 02:38 index-on-liberty.txt.Z
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 staff 10322 Oct 11 23:51 jefferson-inaug-address
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 staff 5335 Oct 12 02:08 jefferson-inaug-address.Z
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 41576 Jul 28 02:37 libertarian-bylaws.txt
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 16997 Jul 28 02:38 libertarian-bylaws.txt.Z
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 81395 Jan 6 1990 libertarian-platform-1990
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 34817 Jan 5 1990 libertarian-platform-1990.Z
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 21129 Jun 25 18:54 libertarian-program-1990
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 10265 Jun 25 18:55 libertarian-program-1990.Z
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 3312 May 3 15:55 neil-smith-new-covenant
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 2020 May 3 15:56 neil-smith-new-covenant.Z
drwxrwxr-x 2 1295 wheel 512 Sep 10 06:35 news-clippings
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 112048 Feb 8 1990 no-treason
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 wheel 45999 Feb 8 1990 no-treason.Z
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 staff 5504 Oct 12 02:28 smallest-political-quiz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 1295 staff 2818 Oct 12 02:29 smallest-political-quiz.Z
226 ASCII Transfer complete.
ftp> quit
221 Goodbye.
cs:/u/grad/thomson 2> exit
cs:/u/grad/thomson 3>
script done on Tue Oct 16 15:56:43 199
Rich Thomson thomson@cs.utah.edu {bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!thomson
``If everybody is thinking the same thing, is anybody thinking?'' --Bob Johnson
****************************************************************************
To spell it out:
go to your internet host. type:
ftp early-bird.think.com
it will type a bunch of stuff and ask you your name, reply:
ftp
it will ask for a password, type your address in the form:
Foo@fee.boo.bee
it will login you in, type:
cd libernet
then type
get hr4079
kick back and wait till your host recieves the 150K file and then type
bye
If you really would like to see this absolutely horrifying document and can't
ftp, I will mail it to you if you really desire it. It's so big it shouldn't
be posted to the net again and again, for each new generation of informed.
Mail me at the address in my header always if the header reply address is
headed at the address (too much studying of pointers, Computer Sci Major)
(Lot's of thanks to the Libertarians and to liberty-net for hosted the site
for this and other fine dox!)
James
Internet jprice@jove.cs.pdx.edu "Justice is incedental to law and order."
SCUD: 45 31 25 N 122 40 30 W - J. Edgar Hoover
Unity not uniformity "Reading musses up my mind." - Henry Fordbh1e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Brendan Gallagher Hoar) (02/06/91)
As far as I know, that bill was killed a long long time ago. Brendan G. Hoar bh1e+@andrew.cmu.edu Apartment 1 Caregie Mellon, Inc. 357 Melwood Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 621-8278
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (02/06/91)
cb@zitt (Cyberspace Buddha) writes: }congressional bill would suspend constitution, declare martial law }(from mondo 2000, winter 1991) Well, Let me mention that using "mondo 2000" as your source of information about legal matters is fairly bogus from the start. Second, if you know even a little bit about how our government works, you'll realize that this information HAS to be bogus: all of the _bills_ die when the Congressional session ends... so either this is a non-issue or it is a law [and the answer is.... it is a non-issue]. In fact, of all of the stuff about HR4079 that has appeared over the last year, this is one of the most illinformed, inflamatory, and generally bogus reports I've ever seen. } A new bill, HR 4079, ... "new"? The bill was introducet on 22 Feb 1990. }] ... would open the way for American concentration camps to be buil }t, and thereafter permit the state to round up _suspected_ drug users and force them } to work without compensation for the state. Huh? The bill proposes no such thing. What hogwash. Prisoners have always been compelled to work, the matter of the 'standards' to which prisons can be built are a matter of federal regulation, and there is no hint of anything to do with "suspected". Yes, HR4079 was an offensive bit of stuff [and I'm real happy that it died in committee], but this kind of ill-informed ranting is surely counterproductive --- how can we possibly try to influence our legislators in any sort of effective way if we are so woefully ill-informed. It'll just reinforce the impression that they already undoubtedly have that we 'rabble' are just a bunch of know-nothing bozos, and that drugs have burned away what little brains we may have started with. } The bill proposes suspending the Constitution for five years so that millions }of illegal drug users could be held by the state in concentration camps. All interne }es would be forced to work and if anyone is caught with drugs in the camps, they wou }ld have one year added to their sentence each time -- with no right to appeal. This must be what it is like reading 'news' in the Weekly World News or some such. "proposes suspending the Constitution"??? I'll be happy to forward you (or anyone who wants one) a copy of the bill and I'd be delighted to see where you think it says any such thing. } HR 4079 calls for declaration of a five-year national state of emergency -- in } essence martial law. This is unbelievable --- if I tried to actually correct all of the misstatements, exaggerations and such in this 'news article', this posting would be about five times as long as the original --- I don't think I've ever seen so many bogosities per sentence before. For example, the preamble to the bill includes some hyperbolic rhetoric about a "National Drug and Crime Emergency", but that "emergency" carries no legal weight... it is just rhetoric. And it is certainly not "martial law" --- what a joke even to suggest that. The fact is that this is just another bill: no suspending of the Constitution, no "martial law". YES: in the bill the feds "turn the screws" [e.g., by eliminating early-release of persons convicted of drug offenses], but it is hardly the prelude to armageddon... }.. To aid in accomplishing this, the 4th Amendmen }t, the 8th Amendment, and habeas corpus are to be either superseded, redefined, or d }isallowed. More of the kind of massive misinformation that is,apparently, intended to inflame, rather than inform. As for the 4th, the bill does very little more than codify the *already*existing* standards for 'good faith' exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Note I say *already*existing*: even though this bill has died, the SC has *already* made this bit of offensiveness the law of the land, and so the badness is *still*with*us*, HR4079 or no HR4079. As for the 8th.. again: no big 'assault' on the constitution, but more a matter of (obnoxiously) turning the screws. Now: this bill proposes making jail sentences a LOT longer, and mostly tries to ensure that everyone convicted will serve their *whole* sentence --- no early release. This means, of course, that there will be LOTS more people in prison, and so the question comes up as to where the prison space will come from. Well, the bill includes a bunch of obnoxious modifications as to prison-standards. Note that the construction standards of prisons are *already* a matter of simple federal regulation, subject **ONLY** to eighth-amendment review by the SC, and so a set of new standards is hardly an earthshattering constitutional assault. Yes, they propose all sorts of unpleasant "temporary" facilities and such, but they don't need any 'emergency' or anything else to do that --- in fact, I suspect they don't even need a formal law to do so: I bet that that is all within the prerogatives of the existing regulations empowering the prision system, although I ahven't checked the CFR to verify that. But how does this related to the eighth? Well, the current Supreme Court has already shown an inclination to *not* entertain "class action" civil rights suits. This is a bit sad, but, again, it is *fact*. What HR4079 simply "directs" the lower courts [as if it had the power to do so: again,you must realize that this is all content-free rhetoric in the bill...] to take a similar course of action in lower-court reviews of claims of cruel and unusual punishment. The actual wording is: "(a)(1) During the period of the National Drug and Crime Emergency, a Federal court shall not hold prison or jail crowding unconstitutional under the eighth amendment except to the extent that an individual plaintiff proves that the crowding causes the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment of that inmate. As I say, this _type_ of approach to individual rights violations is in consonance with the current Supreme court, and I suspect that the various lower courts [who are free to do as they please, ANYWAY, of course] would be more influenced by the signals from the SC than from any random bill that purports to tell them how to do their job... I've got to stop... take my word for it that the REST of the 'report' on HR4079 is as filled with half-truths, innuendo, intentionally inflammatory ranting, and such as the first part was. There's hardly a SINGLE statement about HR4079 that is close-enough to reality to be worth commenting on (and certainly not _acting_ on!)... if you want to be any sort of player in the legislative cycle [e.g., even to the extent of just writing letters to your Representative and the like], you have to be a LOT better informed than this article leaves you. }[Mondo 2000's] Editor's note: The number of the bill, once again, is HR 4079 and thi }s report is NOT exaggerating. Look it up. This it absolutely outrageous --- sort of the coup de grace. They say "... and this report is NOT exaggerating. Look it up." Simply put: the report is *overwhelmingly* exaggerating, and it is patently obvious that *THEY* didn't look it up. I recommend you forget about "mondo 2000" and find some other source for information about the law... /Bernie\
jls@yoda.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) (02/07/91)
bh1e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Brendan Gallagher Hoar) writes: >As far as I know, that bill was killed a long long time ago. All well and good, but the congressman who authored the bill lives on...
edp@jareth.enet.dec.com (Eric Postpischil (Always mount a scratch monkey.)) (02/08/91)
In article <1447@pdxgate.UUCP>, jprice@jove.cs.pdx.edu (James Price) writes: > HR4079 is old news really. Here is an old post from OCT 19 showing you >where to ftp the complete body of the text from: >(thanks to Rich Thomson, the original poster!) Hmmph. Next time I type in something that large, I'll include my name in it somewhere. As before, if anybody has trouble getting it from think.com, then just send me mail. -- edp (Eric Postpischil) "Always mount a scratch monkey." edp@jareth.enet.dec.com
rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert J. Knapp) (02/08/91)
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.drugs: 6-Feb-91 Re: Congressional nasties... > Bernie Cosell@bbn.com (7259) > As for the 8th.. again: no big 'assault' on the constitution, but more > a matter of (obnoxiously) turning the screws. *ANY* assualt on the constitution is a big assaualt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We can not allow or rights to be taken away; even if it IS bit by bit, we still lose them in the end. Legalize, Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp "Take this knife and bring me to LIFE."
rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert J. Knapp) (02/08/91)
I've read this bill, along with one of my friends and ***IT IS SCARRY***** with little ins and outs that blow the constitution out of the water. Little things like cruel and unuaually punishment, and expost facto laws. Really fun stuff. The bill maybe dead, but it was considered, and that should scare every one. Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp "Take this knife and bring me to LIFE."
jls@yoda.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) (02/09/91)
As the poet said: "Not with a bang, but a whimper". We are not going to lose our freedoms in one big attack (although the Kennedy assassination probably is an exception...), but, instead, in tiny little bits and dribbles. Riders to little read bills. Fine print. Slightly higher registration "fees" (for WHAT?). Longer lines at the bureaucracy. Ever increasing pinching and cramping and prodding by the ever-present almighty fucking State. Makes me want to hoard assault rifles and canned food. Look, when my grandfather was a teenager, there were no speed limits in Indiana. When my father was a teenager, they had speed limits, but he could still buy fireworks (BIG ones, not these pathetic sparklers and smoke pellets for crying out loud--I'm talking things that you feel in your CHEST when they go off). When I was a teenager, Saturday Night Live made jokes about drugs, and it was still possible to tell a dirty joke without some tight-ass pursing their lips at me for being politically incorrect (whatever the fuck THAT means). And if I was foolish enough to have kids? What for them? The chance to buy really cool videogames? Wowee--I guess that's what they'd have to settle for, since they'll have the death penalty by then for skateboarding (unless someone like 20th Century Fox can figure out a way to make a lot of money renting time at "approved" skateparks for "safe fun" [any oxymoron if I've ever heard one]). Pick pick pick. Nibble nibble nibble. You can't fight back at it because it is so subtle: if they just started rounding up gays one day and sending them to camps, it MIGHT cause some sort of backlash. But if they bide their time and do it all SLOWLY, nobody notices. You just wake up each day a little more tired. And if you DO try to fight back, you look like a loon--"Gee, we just wanted him to fill out a little form and he started raving at us..." Have a nice day.
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (02/10/91)
rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert J. Knapp) writes: }I've read this bill, along with one of my friends and ***IT IS }SCARRY***** with little ins and outs that blow the constitution out of }the water. Little things like cruel and unuaually punishment, and }expost facto laws. Really fun stuff. The bill maybe dead, but it was }considered, and that should scare every one. I've said this before and I'll say it again: the bill was 99% *HOT*AIR*. It was _calculated_ to be scary, but said broke virtually *no* new ground. I think you and your friend have misread/misunderstood the bill. The Bill was an offensive, unwise, ugly bit of stuff, but it was hardly the sort of monstrosity that many are so anxious to paint it... And it _certainly_ did *nothing* to the Constitution [not that it could, of course, but if you thought it was even *trying*, then you misread it.] /Bernie\
gray@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Bill Gray x2128) (02/13/91)
In article <62555@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >cb@zitt (Cyberspace Buddha) writes: > [stuff deleted] >But how does this related to the eighth? Well, the current Supreme >Court has already shown an inclination to *not* entertain "class >action" civil rights suits. This is a bit sad, but, again, it is >*fact*. What HR4079 simply "directs" the lower courts [as if it had ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ >the power to do so: again,you must realize that this is all ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ >content-free rhetoric in the bill...] to take a similar course of >action in lower-court reviews of claims of cruel and unusual >punishment. > > > /Bernie\ Bernie does a good job of debunking some semiliterate hysteria about HR4079. However, I wonder if Congress does not, in fact, have the power to direct the courts with respect to class action suits. Consider the following, from an obscure legal document (i.e., the Constitution of the United States): "Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States. . . "In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ I know some attempts to place certain kinds of cases outside the courts' reach have themselves been ruled unconstitutional. I do not know the details of such attempts, or what flaw the court found in them. But it is true that the Founders never envisioned the kind of judicial joyrides we've seen in the last half of this century. I haven't seen HR4079 for myself so I cannot judge it fairly. The excerpts quoted here can be read in a variety of ways, depending on the context in which they are placed. I will say, however, that insisting that violent criminals serve all of their long sentences is not a Bad Thing; it is about the only thing on which Handgun Control, Inc., the NRA, and the Police Chiefs all agree on. If the thrust of the bill is to take everyone who ever smoked a joint from their homes at gunpoint in the dark of night and confine them naked in the Arctic tundra w/o trial--then that's another matter. . . Bill -- : gray@rsvl.unisys.com : : : : My gun is safer than Ted : : Unisys has enough problems without being : Kennedy's car. : : blamed for my personal opinions. : :
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (02/24/91)
mccoy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) writes: }After seeing this article I decided to wait a while and let someone }else correct it, but since no one else has I suppose I should. }In article <103@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM>, gray@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Bill Gray x2128) writes: }|> In article <62555@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: }|> >cb@zitt (Cyberspace Buddha) writes: }|> > }|> >... What HR4079 simply "directs" the lower courts [as if it had }|> ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ }|> >the power to do so:... }|> }|> Bernie does a good job of debunking some semiliterate hysteria about }|> HR4079. However, I wonder if Congress does not, in fact, have the power }|> to direct the courts with respect to class action suits. Consider the }|> following, from an obscure legal document (i.e., the Constitution of the }|> United States): }|> }|> [text of section II of article 3 of the U.S. Constitution granting }|> Congress the right to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the }|> Supreme Court deleted] }|> }|> I know some attempts to place certain kinds of cases outside the courts' }|> reach have themselves been ruled unconstitutional. I do not know the }|> details of such attempts, or what flaw the court found in them. }They didn;t find a flaw in them. In fact, the U.S. Congress _has_ }limited the jurisdiction of the Courts and placed certain cases }outside of it's power.... This is all correct, but is not relevant to the case at hand. I admit I was a bit flip in my critique [but then, this isn't misc.legal and I was responding to a MASSIVELY ill informed and misleading essay]. On this specific topic, as far as I've ever been able to see [although I admit that my research on this has been somewhat cursory], Art III Sec 2 Cl. 2 refers to _jurisdictional_ matters and _procedural_ matters, but not *legal* matters. As far as I can unearth, the very idea that Congress could tell the SC "this is still in your jurisdiction, but if it comes before you, you may NOT use the following logic in deciding the case", but that is precisely what HR4079 purported to do. I will agree that that could be argued to be an attempt to break new Constitutional ground, but the idea that the appearance of that wording in the bill actually "made it so" [and so _succeeded_ in finessing the Constitution] is not correct. That kind of limitations are not, now at least, within the powers of Congress. /Bernie\