Executive power and all that
Instapundit has a post that should be read by anyone concerned about government under law and trifles like that should read. Basically, in 1982 -- that's right, '82 -- a guy is convicted under a statute on exports. The prosecution had a minor problem: the statute had expired before his act took place. This is normally something of a problem in a prosecution.
But, the Ninth Circus, excuse me, Circuit held, that was no worry. President Ford had issued an Exec Order extending the term of the statute, pursuant to a provision in the statue that allowed its extension during a national emergency.
Apart from the constitutional problems I see in Congress allowing the President to extend the duration of one of its laws ... little things like separation of powers and accountability and due process and trifles like that ... President Ford didn't declare a national emergency, he relied on prior declarations by Harry S. Truman relating to the Korean War, and a 1971 declaration by Richard Nixon relating to an international monentary crisis, neither of which had anything to do with the situation at hand.
Which is why some of us are concerned about National Security Presidential Directive 51. Instie also has a link about it. The link is to a story about NSPD 51 and the extra-ordinarily sloppy way in which in was written. Or was it sloppy? You be the judge.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at October 19, 2007 08:54 PM
I wish the GOP, when they had a chance, had just broken the 9th into two pieces, distributed the liberal (that is, most) judges equally and then appointed new smart (read, law-following) judges to fill the new vacancies. So much junk comes out of that circuit!
Posted by: Jim at October 19, 2007 10:50 PM
All the more troubling given the EAR controls what you can speak to a foreign national about, i.e., deemed export. The threshold is pretty high but if you know controlled aspects of technology, you have to be cognizant of the nationality and permanent residency of who you speak to and what you say at conferences both inside and outside the US lest you end up with charge of exporting without a license.
Not to mention, some of the controls weren't really vetted well. Such as 8A992i, which makes it a violation to give a Cuban, Iranian, Syrian, i.e., people from terrorist countries, a life jacket. The entry is obviously about dive gear but someone didn't know a buoyancy compensator isn't a life jacket. Fortunately, you could make a good argument that "use" technology of a life jacket is probably in the "public domain" so telling a Cuban how to use a life jacket wouldn't require a license.
"i. Life jackets, inflation cartridges, compasses,
wetsuits, masks, fins, weight belts, and dive
Posted by: JKB at October 20, 2007 12:18 AM
Never trust a judge to preserve your rights or protect your life.
The classic example of judicial abasement to the legislature is the use of rational basis ("so long as the Congress isn't filled with gibbering monkeys, their decisions are good") analysis to reduce most of the Provisions of the CONSTITUTIONAL Bill of Rights to mere platitudes. If the courts won't even protect the CONSTITUTION (smut and abortion are exceptions), what remains of "rule of law?"
Judges are chosen after 20 years of proving every day that they support the status quo as defined by their elite masters. So, what should we expect?
Posted by: 30yearprof at October 20, 2007 10:19 AM
Break up the 9th Circuit.
Posted by: Tarn Helm at October 20, 2007 01:13 PM
Couldn't we just put in an animal shelter and if nobody claims them, follow procedure?
Posted by: straightarrow at October 20, 2007 02:28 PM
them is the word I left out, here it is.
Posted by: straightarrow at October 20, 2007 02:29 PM