Oh by the way, S.22 doesn't do a damn thing about
. . . identity theft other than to limit who can have or sell Social Security numbers, and specify harsher penalties. No reform of tying this number o' th' Beast to one's credit in the first place, which makes it so potent a weapon against its assignee (I hesitate to use the term "owner" or "bearer"). No pilot program to compel the military to return to a DoD-issued service number for all routine admin actions.

"I'm worried that, if this cleverly-named bill gets to the Senate floor, several Republicans might vote for it because it has a popular-sounding title."
This from a fundraising letter from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Your humble narrator would dispute that the name is clever: "Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003." Rather, that it is bland, general enough to be meaningless. All the better for pulling a fast one or making one's vote deniable.

It's also saying a lot that a lobbying organization will admit that some Senators will vote for something without even a superficial familiarity with its contents.

I've long agreed with a proposed Congressional rule that would require every bill to be read aloud, in its entirety, to the Committee of the Whole before it is put to a vote, as well as to the Committee that is responsible for sending it to the floor for that vote. It is one of those commonsense measures that will go nowhere. This Senate bill is the latest example I've taken the trouble to even skim. So be careful if you browse to that link up there in the title of this post, its fat ass spreads across 486 pages.

For Chrissakes, it's got a bit of everything: identity theft, telemarketing fraud, Nationalizing the Amber alert, protecting senior citizens from whatever distracts them from their oatmeal, and shielding whistleblowers. In addition, of course, to the usual suspects, ballistic fingerprinting and The Gun Show Loophole, whatever that is held to be in Senate bill 22.

It's a wholesale bid to overhaul Federal criminal law, including the laws of evidence and sentencing.

To your humble narrator, "Federal crime" is supposed to be an oxymoron anyway, with the exception of those few Constitutionally enumerated offenses such as treason and counterfeiting; and judges are supposed to have control of the sentencing process.