From: "A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 00:14:37 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Why ? You really want to know =>
Message-ID: <960210103932.20214ab9@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>> The Administration has repeatedly stated its belief that those parts of 
>>the bill are unconsitutional, and does not intend to enforce them. 

>So why the fornicate did they include them? What's the point of passing 
>laws that they say they're not going to enforce, unless it's either to 
>enforce them later, or soften up the public for something _slightly_ more 
>tolerable later.

If you already knew the answer, why ask ? It also could be that under our
system of laws, once a rider is attached to a bill (in this case the
telecommunications bill) it is almost impossible to remove. Congress has
been using this quirk to provide pork-barrel & special interest thingies
for years.

I would prefer to think that some, realizing the impossibility of removal,
increased it to the point of obvious unconstitutionality so that it would
be separated as soon as possible. I suspect that both the three-judge special
panel and the following supreme court decisions are already known and time
is just needed to craft the SC decision so finely that this never happens
again. (ever the optomist but believe that while the congressional agenda
may be different and unobvious, it is rarely stupid.)

- Pick almost any chapter in the Old Testament. Read it halfway. Look at
how the famous figures look *at that point*. Just do not quote the "Song of
Solomon" (KJV) on the net. Today.
						Warmly,
							Padgett