that its insurance arrangement with NAVL contravened the law. We disagree. As we have already concluded, the statute when read with § 102.31, STATS., and the general principles of ch. 102, Stats., reasonably advises that a covered employer must provide insurance for every employee and for every potential activity engaged in by its employees unless the employer receives prior written approval of an alternative insurance arrangement. Reedway also alleges that § 102.82, Stats., is substantively defective because it violates "the 'fundamental fairness1 aspect of due process." Reedway contends that the penalty imposed under the statute is so severe, unreasonable and unwarranted that it is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Southwestern Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Danaher, 238 U.S. 482, 490-91 (1915) (<HOLDING>). Further, Reedway argues that if in fact it
holding the death penalty unconstitutional for mentally retarded defendants holding that the penalty is applicable holding that any fact other than fact of prior convictions which increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants holding that a statute which exacts a penalty beyond the bounds of reason is unconstitutional