Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!tcmaint From: tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) Newsgroups: misc.kids,news.misc,alt.sex,misc.misc,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: alt.sex to become illegal in New Jersey? Message-ID: <4780@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> Date: 22 May 89 07:53:22 GMT References: <3246@looking.UUCP> <3302@tank.uchicago.edu> <1301@dover.sps.mot.com> <4765@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> <1320@dover.sps.mot.com> Reply-To: tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Vancouver, WA. Lines: 84 Xref: utzoo misc.kids:9099 news.misc:3051 misc.misc:6273 talk.politics.misc:26728 In article <1320@dover.sps.mot.com> waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer) writes: >In article <4765@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) writes: >>In article <1301@dover.sps.mot.com> waters@dover.UUCP (Strawberry Jammer) writes: >>>In article <3302@tank.uchicago.edu> stel@tank.uchicago.edu (stelios valavanis) writes: >>>>This censorship thing is really scary. I think everybody should be completely >>>>against it. >>>How about DOING sometrhing about it. A donation to the Bational Coalition >>>Against Censorship for example: >>>NCAC >>>2 West 64th Street >>>New York, NY 10023 >>>212-724-1500 >>Bravo! Mike is right-on, here. I recommend "investment" in such organizat- >>ions which protect our basic Constitutional rights. Your best contribution, >>though, would be to assure yourself that such organizations also support ALL >>those Constitutional rights, as I am sure the NCAC does, right? >I suspect that they are as "focused" on the 1st Amendment as the NRA is on >the 2nd. I don't see what the problem is with that. I am sure that they are. >>Also, since the Principles expressed in the Constitution are still as valid >>today, as they were then, that the Supreme Court's efforts be directed to >>strict adherence to the intent expressed in those Principles. In that way, >>mere opinion, of whatever color, _cannot_ infringe on that application to >>_individual_ life under penalty of law (Sections 241, 242 U.S. Criminal Code.) >I am really not sure what you are getting at here, but there are enough >flagrantly Unconstitutional Laws being passed that perhaps a criminal >penalty would be in order for those who pass such laws. AFTER a judical >review of course. There is a lot of talk about this or that being >"Unconstitutional" with little or no evidence and nothing in the way of >Judicial rulings. Exactly my point. For example, the "definitive" tax case, U.S. vs. Sullivan is a case where Justice Holmes disallowed Sullivan's privelege against self- incrimination. This case is now used to bar examination of cases dealing with legitimate 4th and 5th Amendment violation(s), routinely committed by the IRS. And, this in the face of strict U.S. criminal laws against it... >The "right to bear arms" by individuals is one example, it >seems that the decisions so far at least imply an organized militia under >the control of a government body of some sort. Obviously the NRA and >supporters dispute this, but have been unable to cite any clearcut decision >by the Supreme Court to back it up (so far at least). Your right, again. The "militia" argument is a strong reason to keep the 2d's RKBA intact and continuing. Hopefully, if properly used, it could reduce the country's need for a large standing army; as our Founding Fathers hoped. However, again, this is an area which the Supreme Court "pretends" to support our Constitutional rights and those that they, too, swore to up- hold. The (several) cases, although disallowing "individual" claims against the use of the right, here too, are being used to stop hearing anything "new" along those same "lines". >>If you, as citizens, wrote letters to the Grand Jury in your areas, perhaps >>these matters could be "tested" to a quick-and-speedy conclusion. Ultimately, >>though, it really depends on the smallest voting incorporation, so VOTE! >>(Right, Mike?) >Well when I was called to serve on the Grand Jury it was the state/U.S. >attourney who determined just what issues were investigated. The Grand Jury >does have broad poweres of investigation of those issues though. As I >recall though quite extreme precautions are taken not to let things like a >letter writing campaign influence them since they are not supposed to test >the popularity of anything, just "reasonable cause for prosecution". Certainly, if you recognize a crime being committed, you report it. A Grand Jury member can ask the pertinent questions necessary to show "reasonable cause". If it appears that these prominent U.S. Criminal statutes are being broken, an indictment can be handed-down. If a few City and State legislators were so indicted, you can bet that the infringe- ment would soon disappear! Tad tomd@pulsar.telcom.tek.com