Jim Choate writes:
It appears to me that your comments to Michael are based on your views
on the undesirability of the way the US judicial system operates in
practice today. Michael is merely offering his expert opinion on how
various questions would likely be interpreted by the current legal
system.
Black Unicorn also tends to get flack from various people for stating
what I am sure is a realistic view of the way that certain legal
questions would be viewed by judges, the supreme courts etc.
Personally I am grateful to any one with legal expertise giving input
to legal questions on list. Greg Broiles also adds useful comments in
this area.
Screams of "and you think this is a good idea?" and "but what about
the constitution" are misdirected; I strongly suspect each of the
three posters I mention above share your distaste for the redefinition
of meanings and blatant disregard for the fairly clear meanings of the
constitution.
Adam
--
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0
