🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov5.121745.21162@ulysses.att.com>, smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
> In article <WCS.92Nov4184054@rainier.ATT.COM>, wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
> > There's been one Amendment since then, restricting Congress's ability
> > to raise its own pay.  Originally proposed in the early 1800s,
> > and not having a time limit for its adoption, it was finally approved
> > by 3/4 of the states a few months ago.
> 
> Yes, and I think it's going to make for an interesting Supreme Court case.
> I seem to recall an earlier court ruling that ratifications be
> ``substantially contemporaneous'', which sure doesn't apply here.  And a
> lawsuit has been filed under that amendment, charging that a recent
> Congressional pay raise violates it.

Well, the archivist of the Constitution has added it, and I am not really
sure what role the court will play.  The Court really has no role in this
and I would really, really love to see them try to rule one way or another
and get squashed for it...

ObCrypt: It is interesting to note how easily/quickly people jumped to the
gun analogy when people start talking about restricting encryption.  Is
crypto the functional equivalent of a gun in an information age?

jim
-- 
Jim McCoy          |  PGP 2.0 Key md5 hash:
j-mccoy@nwu.edu    |  61323c49024cb089337c78a05aafe8c6
mccoy@ils.nwu.edu  |  finger mccoy@ils.nwu.edu for public key