Forwarded message:

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:56:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu> Subject: Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming

OK, Tim, I'll try: The use of communication in furtherance of a crime shall add five years . . .etc.

The use of any device to enhance the speed of communication in furtherance of a crime shall . . . etc.

The use of any device to disguise a voice in furtherance of . . . etc.

The use of any cryptographic means of communication in furtherance . . .

Now, if two and three above are constitutional, why aren't one and four?

The use of any printing press in the .... The use of speech in the ... Per the 1st, 9th & 10th; "The use of <blah> in the ...." is un-Constitutional. Now, I can see committing a crime using some facility or special skill might exacerbate the verdict, is that the intent? We could just do away with the preamble and go with exacerbating the verdict if a special skill or facility is required. If nothing else it eliminates any pretense of spontinaity, in effect pre-meditation or aggravation. From that perspective I don't see a Constitutional issue except regarding the punishment phase. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|