From: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 07:02:22 +0800
To: Jim McCoy <mccoy@communities.com>
Subject: Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
In-Reply-To: <v03007801ae6bf1788684@[204.179.128.16]>
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.960924125437.13006A-100000@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




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...)
 
> 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?