Eric Takabayashi wrote:

> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
> 
>>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So, basically, you disagree with the Bill of Rights.
>>>
>>>[Fourth and Fifth] Also the First Amendment. That makes three, or I should say, PARTS of three
>>
>>amendments. Why do you say basically, as if I support throwing it all out?
>>
>>At least you are honest.
> 
> 
> After going back to my World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004, I see that I also disagree with parts
> of the 8th Amendment. Why should we not have "unusual" punishments? My graduation thesis for high
> school was about alternatives to incarceration. We were required to go to the local courthouse's
> legal library and use their magazines and volumes to write our papers on aspects of law. My paper
> was only about 12 pages long, with relatively few cites. One concern of mine (in 1986) was trying
> to save the government money, as prison overcrowding was already a problem. The only part I can
> remember was citing the (actual) use of radio transmitters on the ankle, to ensure the minor
> offender remained at home, meaning the expense of housing, clothing and feeding them was their own
> responsibility.

It may surprise you (or not) to learn that there are differing opinions
as to what constitutes "punishment." I agree with Thomas's and Scalia's
dissent in _Hudson v. McMillan_.

> Another concern (in 1986) was keeping minor offenders from the clutches of hardened criminals. Some
> people complain about minor offenders walking up and down the street in the middle of town with a
> sandwich board proclaiming them to be criminals, to keep themselves out of jail. One American who
> stole office supplies and was featured on TV, was reported to have fled to the UK (in shame?). What
> kind of person is he to be too ashamed to be publicly known and remembered as someone who does
> something wrong, but fairly common? His former coworkers probably did the same themselves.

I like those kinds of creative punishments. I once read a law review
article that described the case of a man who was compelled to wear
tap-dancing shoes as a condition of his probation after being found
guilty of robbery IIRC.

>>Courts have been snipping away parts of the
>>Bill of Rights for decades but act astonished when you call them on it.
>>"I was just interpreting the document and found a right to stab scissors
>>into a baby's brain! How did that get there?"
> 
> 
> So I looked at what the 16th Amendment was yesterday. I am not surprised.

Can you guess why it is there?

- Kevin