Leonidas
Posts: 1063
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Constitution is the law of the land, and legislators can't trump it.
Perhaps not in the long run, but in the long run, we'll all be dead. Any idea how many years, and through how many courts, something like this statute will get argued before a final constitutional ruling would be made? Meanwhile, if you are on the business end of the "regulations promulgated by the Attorney General", it will suck up your life, your reputation, and whatever money you might have. The people running scared from this aren't chicken littles. They have reason to run scared. Having them run scared, by the way, is the point of those pushing this.
If it were just a matter of going after the purveyors of kiddie-porn, a far narrower (and probably more effective) statute could have been drafted. No, this is all too obviously a case of handing the AG a club with which to intimidate "those perverts". Yeah, it might ultimately get overturned (or at least substantially narrowed in scope) by constitutional concerns, but in the meantime, it's a club.
quote:
I prefer primary sources when I want to make up my own mind. Reading the text is really only way to make an informed decision.
You can't read that statute and tell how the AG is going to interpret it (or what "regulations" he might promulgate to enforce it based on his interpretation). I'll tell you a little story:
Years ago, I was in the tax-shelter business. I got a call one day from my friendly neighborhood IRS agent. He told me that the IRS had decided that one of the tax-shelters that I was selling was "abusive". I asked him to define "abusive" and his reply was "well, we're taking the position that it's abusive". In other words, we're the government, and we can take any position that we damn well please, and it's up to you to prove us wrong. What he wanted was a list of all the people who had bought that shelter. I said no, I was not going to violate my client's privacy. He said that they could put my company under tax examination, and get the records that way. I still said no. I never heard from them again. They tried to win by intimidation. They failed in my case, but they succeeded in many others. Lots of folks who invested in that shelter got letters saying that they would be subject to draconian measures if they claimed it on their taxes, which was another example of the government winning by intimidation. The shelter itself was legal, and actually upheld when the IRS ruling was challenged (at great expense).
Laws like U.S.C. 2257 are enforced by people. People who don't like what you're doing might interpret the law very differently from how you read it. Do you really want to be in a legal fight with an adversary that has effectively unlimited resources? No, probably not. It's that "no, probably not" that the writers of this statue are counting on. The AG is a political appointee that is appointed for political reasons. If he doesn't like what you're doing, this statue gives him the power to make regulations related to this law that can make your life hell, which is the intent of the authors. If you don't see that, well, to quote you "shame on you, sir".
< Message edited by Leonidas -- 10/13/2005 11:08:38 AM >
_____________________________
Take care of yourself
Leonidas
|
RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it af... - 
Profile
) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread