From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:11:40 +0800
To: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
Subject: Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.91.960924125437.13006A-100000@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960925011334.18469d-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 24 Sep 1996 s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Jim McCoy wrote:
> 
> > Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
> > [...]
> > >Constitutional literalists take note:  the First Amendment says nothing
> > >about what the executive branch or the states can do ....
> Doesn't the doctrine of limited powers mean that they cannot do what is not
> specified? (If I'm not mistaken, IANAL, etc...)
>  

If so, why would we need the First Amendment to protect us from Congress 
regulating speech? [etc.]  

And, in any event, the limited powers argument 
wouldn't apply to the states:  "The powers not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

EBD


> > The states are prohibited through the 14th Amendment via the
> > Slaughterhouse cases, the ability of the executive branch to
> > violate due process is questionable (from a legal viewpoint, not
> > a practical one...the President cannot order you placed in jail
> > unless you have broken a law which requires congress to have
> > made the law in the first place...)
> 
> And the ITARs are only executive orders, no? Not laws, right? I'm curious 
> as to why they're considered valid. Anyone know?
>