At 04:15 PM 9/17/97 -0400, Carl Ellison wrote:
At 04:10 PM 9/15/97 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 695 OFFERED BY MR. WELDON AND MR. DELLUMS
[...]
Decisions made by the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense with respect to exports of encryption products under this section shall not be subject to judicial review.
I take it this last sentence is intended to kill Bernstein, Karn and Junger and any other cases we might try to bring. Correct?
As I remember _Karn_ (sorry to hand-wave, am behind a very slow net connection at the moment), it's primarily a challenge to State/BXA's decisions with respect to a particular export license application. The sentence above from the Weldon/Dellums amendment would eliminate that sort of challenge. Congress cannot eliminate challenges like those in _Bernstein_ and _Junger_ which are challenges to a statutory/regulatory scheme on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. The only way to avoid/eliminate judicial review of a constitutional challenge to a statute is to amend the constitution itself. (cf. the "no offensive flag-burning" amendments which are discussed from time to time, which are unconstitutional when expressed as ordinary statutes or as administrative regulations, see _Texas v. Johnson_ and _US v. Eichman_.) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com