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?