1997-08-24 - Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits

Header Data

From: “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>
To: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
Message Hash: 99a8d55d0011b403ea58b655c58fe1363a83cea56120dac8ba2cf810c5411561
Message ID: <199708240333.WAA10310@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Reply To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970823202919.637D-100000@cavern.uark.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-24 03:33:52 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 11:33:52 +0800

Raw message

From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 11:33:52 +0800
To: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970823202919.637D-100000@cavern.uark.edu>
Message-ID: <199708240333.WAA10310@mailhub.amaranth.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <Pine.SOL.3.96.970823202919.637D-100000@cavern.uark.edu>, on 08/23/97 
   at 08:33 PM, Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu> said:

>On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Tim May wrote:
>> 
>> There's a landmine here, of course. Namely, the issue of whether states may
>> impose restrictions which are "unconstitutional." To some states rights
>> folks, as I assume Jim Choate may be, the answer is often "of course." To
>> some libertarians, the answer is often "of course not." A good example to
>> consider is "free speech." The First Amendment talks about Congress shall
>> make no law...does this mean California may ban certain books, restrict
>> certain religions, or impose censorship on the press?
>> 
>> (Most folks would say "Of course not." But on what basis can individual
>> states and municipalities override the Second Amendment?)

>Most folks would, today, but this was not always a given in our
>constitutional jurisprudence.  It's a post-14th Amendment development,
>the Bill Of Rights having been understood by the SCt to have been applied
>to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment's restrictions on state
>governments.  It's never  been an impeccable logic, but it seems to get
>to the right result.  For most folks, anyway:)

Well i think that you also have to take into account the political setting
of the times. The Framers of the Constitution were representatives of the
States all of which had 1st Amendment protections in their State
Constitutions. Their concerns were not with the States but with a Federal
Government overriding rights already protected by the States.



- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM/+dtI9Co1n+aLhhAQG7xAQAosflAz8++IP2u3flpO2H0nQtKCs13A9S
XyoWKjn66iBtB2t4YdVUGxNTSIiA1dr0bB4PQBPq0AWHazfwOXrbDtu5FkevLObx
gcLZv7nJ8nsEmF7ssvrhzjAAKnM/Ip0Qh88m8m0iuXbeCk9NcrAray8FrbaaPu5s
stufv/Nl5uY=
=ecqZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----






Thread