Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>]

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      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|