Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!atc!s5000!gray
From: gray@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Bill Gray x2128)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Congressional nasties...
Message-ID: <103@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM>
Date: 12 Feb 91 19:39:18 GMT
References: <5RDuw1w163w@zitt> <62555@bbn.BBN.COM>
Reply-To: gray@s5000.UUCP (Bill Gray x2128)
Distribution: alt.drugs, comp.society.futures
Organization: Unisys - Roseville, MN
Lines: 57

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.          :                                  :