bram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I don't believe the courts will allow the government to present
>> > evidence without giving the defense a chance to contest the means used
>> > to obtain it.
>>
>> The same could be said about the movie rating system, child pornography,
>> and crypto export laws. Just because something is clearly unconstitutional
>> doesn't mean courts won't go along with it.
The movie rating system is not a government system. Child pornography
falls under obscenity, which is a line of decisions I don't agree
with, but I wouldn't say they are "clearly unconstitutional". So far,
the courts have generally ruled against crypto export laws when given
the chance. The courts work very, very slowly, unfortunately. IMHO,
this legislation is more like the CDA in its blatant
unconstitutionality, and I would hope the courts would respond
similarly, by enjoining enforcement until the SC could strike it down.
>> > It's scary that the White House would try to pass such legislation,
>> > but I don't fear it being enforced.
>>
>> "I can't say that because it would violate national security" was an
>> oft-repeated refrain in the Iran-Contra affair. Like it or not, the
>> 'national security' excuse has quite a bit of history to it and it's very
>> naive to think it will just go away.
I believe that was the defendants making that claim, not the
prosecution. There's a world of difference.
Marc
