Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Taxation is theft?
Message-ID: <693@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 01:05:17 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.693
Posted: Tue Feb 19 01:05:17 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Feb-85 05:18:54 EST
References: <634@topaz.ARPA> <259@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 16

> Every such contract I have ever signed has contained clauses which the
> courts would throw out as unconstitutionally vague if the document were a
> bill of law.  In particular, they have all contained a clause forbidding the
> use of the premises for any "immoral purpose".  A law would have to spell
> out what that meant in detail, which might well take tens of thousands of
> words.
 
> Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center

Hmm.  A contract might just have a few vague phrases in it, like
"general welfare", "probable cause", "interstate commerce"...

Check it out, I think you'll find the law is a lot vaguer than you thought.
What do you think keeps the lawyers in business?

--JoSH