Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> 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<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`