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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Edwin Meese
Message-ID: <1969@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Jan-86 00:15:34 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1969
Posted: Sat Jan 18 00:15:34 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Jan-86 21:01:44 EST
References: <446@ssc-bee.UUCP> <4740@alice.UUCP> <1945@psuvax1.UUCP> <355@cisden.UUCP> <1956@psuvax1.UUCP> <400@cisden.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 94

> 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