Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cisden.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!hplabs!hao!nbires!boulder!cisden!john From: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Edwin Meese Message-ID: <400@cisden.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Jan-86 11:49:35 EST Article-I.D.: cisden.400 Posted: Tue Jan 14 11:49:35 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jan-86 17:46:24 EST References: <446@ssc-bee.UUCP> <4740@alice.UUCP> <1945@psuvax1.UUCP> <355@cisden.UUCP> <1956@psuvax1.UUCP> Reply-To: john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) Organization: ConTel Information Systems, Denver Lines: 85 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