-=> Quoting Sondra Ball to Jim Casto <=-
 SB> Well, actually the Supreme Court is not *supposed* to listen to those
 SB> arguements.  Sometimes it *does*.
 
 Well, I guess I need clarification in your use of the word "listen". 
"Listen" 
 as in "hear them at _all_" or "listen" as in "not pay any attention"? 
 I am learning in my U.S. Constitution class that the Supreme Court can hear
 (or adjudicate) just about any case brought before them. If they don't feel
 like they even want to deal with the subject (obscenity is probably a good
 example), then they will simply refuse to "hear" the case. However, once
 they decide to adjudicate a case brought before them, they are bound to
 listen to the arguments presented by both sides no matter how ludicrous
 the arguments appear to be. (Well, I suppose they would rule out TOTALLY
 ridiculous like "An alien told me it was illegal." ) THEN, one or more of
 the judges might write an "affirming" opinion and another judge a
 "dissenting" opinion. Other judges may (or may not) concur with either of
 those. They may concur in part or they may write their own opinion. Also,
 contrary to what most people might think, the _majority_ of the judges
 (normally at least five out of the nine) do NOT have to agree on the REASONS
 why they affirm the decision. There only has to be a "plurality". Two judges
 can say "We agree because". Two more can say "We agree, but for these
 different reasons." and one can agree for an entirely different reason
 altogether. That adds up to a "plurality" of five.
 
 SB> Oh, that's right.  Practically godly in every way.  Especially if one
 SB> considers some of the Greek and Roman gods.  (g)
 
 Yeah, as I refer to them "The Great Dead White Guys Society". 
 
 SB> I expect some did, and some did not....
 
 Some of the "founding fathers" were probably in the same quandry many of us
 probably face when we try and deal with issues like capital punishment,
 abortion, assisted suicide, etc. I just feel that deep down inside some
 (and quite possibly a majority) of the signers of the Constitution _knew_
 that slavery was _morally_ wrong, they just simply didn't want to
 deal with at the _Federal_ level. By NOT even mentioning it, they threw the
 slavery issue back to the individual states to deal with. _Then_ the states
 didn't have the guts to _reject_ and throw the Federal Constitution back at
 the "founding fathers" and tell them to "fix it" before the states ratified
 it. It took a war and the 13th Amendment to finally "fix" the "founding
 fathers" screw-up. (Actually, now that I think about it, as I recall, Rhode
 Island originally rejected it but I don't remember why and they were
 virtually blackmailed into ratification.)
 
 Oh that reminds me... The "founding fathers" _did_ have to "fix" the
 Constitution. The first ten amendments (aka the Bill of Rights) weren't
 part of the original Constitution but were added and ratified about a year
 and a half later. So, technically, there was a Constitution but no Bill of
 Rights for about eighteen months. So all the stuff about "freedom of 
peech",
 "bearing arms", etc. was not "Constitutional".
 
 Oh, whilst I am thinking about it. There are _very_ few crimes (particularly
 individual to individual) that are specifically mentioned in the original
 Constitution. For example: I don't think you'll find murder, rape, burglary,
 assault, extortion, etc. in the original Constitution. Those were considered
 to be violations of "natural law" and a foregone conclusion by the "founding
 fathers". Why people didn't consider human bondage to be a violation of
 "natural law" escapes my reasoning ability. I cannot fathom how anyone could
 even consider such a thing. For example: I can't figure out why we should
 have to have specific laws against animal abuse (like beating your dog), but
 we do. :-(
 
 SB> And of course no one did!  (g)
 
 Kinda sorta like "no one notices the atrocities that are inflicted upon the
 minority by the majority." (BTW, my prof will tell you that the Bill of 
Rights
 was written to protect the _minority_ FROM the _majority_.)
 
 (I keep thinking about all these really _weird_ arguments _some_ people can
 come up with like "Animals don't have any Constitutional rights". OR "The
 Declaration of Independence says 'All _men_ are created equal' and that
 doesn't include women therefore they don't get to vote.", etc. Those kind
 of arguments simply do not "compute" with me.)
 
 SB> the army in and removed the Cherokees, forcing them to march to
 SB> Oklahoma in the winter?  That noble soul?
 
 The very same.
 
 JC> BTW, the case I am going to write about for my term paper in my U.S.
 > Constitution seminar is: Washington State v. the Yakima Nation heard in 
97
 > It deals with Public Law 280 and tribal jurisdiction in legal cases.
 SB> I would like it if you summarized your term paper here.  By the way, I
 SB> do know a little about the case.
 
 Good.  Post what you know and I'll use it (and you) for a reference. 
 As for a "summary"...? The paper _is_ a summary of the case and is to be ten
 to fifteen pages long!  (And include endnotes and bibliography.)
 
 Jim
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------