Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Edwin Meese
Message-ID: <1956@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 23:11:39 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1956
Posted: Mon Jan  6 23:11:39 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 19:53:11 EST
References: <446@ssc-bee.UUCP> <4740@alice.UUCP> <1945@psuvax1.UUCP> <355@cisden.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 46

> 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