thanks | Rated: Up
I didn't mean to suggest that they believed the 1994 law was unconstitutionally broad (though I do think it was). Most of the lawmakers don't seem to have been thinking about the infamous crimes language at all. But assuming Pam Jochum's recollection is accurate, and some wanted to preserve the legislature's ability to define infamous crimes, it still suggests to me that they did not take for granted that "infamous crime" would necessarily encompass all felonies. Several of the Supreme Court justices do not accept the legislature's authority to define terms in the constitution, period. It's not surprising that lawmakers would disagree and would see it as their role to define "infamous crimes" however they like.