Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: 556x45

Rationality was, I believe, implicit in both my answers. Sticking to the facts: the fact that the rational relation of “associated entities” with the clearly defined “covered persons” (AQ and Taliban) militates against expanding that definition was, I thought, fairly clear. The executors of this law cannot say, e.g., the San Antonio Spurs or the Tea Party Patriots are an “associated entity” of AQ and thereby make it so.


46 posted on 11/28/2011 11:35:48 AM PST by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: jagusafr

OK, fair enough, it didn’t sound like it to me. However, rationality isn’t necessarily the way decisions are made in DC. This becomes an even bigger problem when judicial review is removed from the picture. It won’t be senators making the calls, that will be cabinets heads and supervisors (like those who gave us F&F). In short while today the nebulous wording might not be a problem thats won;t necessarily be the case in the future. Why are we giving more power to DC esp to name their bad guys de jour and circumvent due process?


47 posted on 11/28/2011 11:50:01 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson