In short, I don't think this is really a "war
on terror" issue but a kind of timeless friction between customs
officers and boaters...

*Exactly*

But some folks just want to blame homeland security or whatever elected
officials are in office at the time, and it has nothing to do with them.

Wow!

(I think I'm enlightened but I'm not really sure.)

--

Roger Long

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 22 Sep 2006 15:41:01 -0500, Dave said:

When push comes to shove, "sensible" almost never enters into the
discussion, only strict legal interpretation of what the law actually
says.

You display a profound ignorance of the way the legal system operates.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:42:42 -0400, Wayne.B
said:

OK, please enlighten us.

OK. I'll give you an example from an area of the law I'm familiar with.
Back in 1933, after many months of hearings, the congress critters passed
a
law called the Securities Act of 1933. That law said it shall be unlawful
to sell a security unless a registration statement is in effect as to
that
security. To register the security you must file a registration statement
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The registration statement
becomes effective automatically on the 20th day after filing.

Reading just the statute, you would think that you file a registration
statement, and wait 20 days, and then sell the security. In the real
world,
that system simply wasn't workable. Probably fewer than one in 5,000
registration statements becomes effective automatically on the 20th day
after filing. The SEC (or at that time, the FTC) and the people involved
in
the industry worked out a system that fit the real world. The system they
devised was that when you file the initial registration statement you add
a
legend on the cover stating that the issuer amends the registration
statement at such time as is necessary to prevent the registration
statement
from becoming effective until the SEC declares it effective by order. Then
the issuer and the SEC work out their differences as to what the
registration statement will say, and when they have agreed the issuer asks
the SEC to issue an order making the registration statement effective. In
the real world, if you were to file a registration statement without that
legend, you would immediately get a call from the SEC suggesting that you
add the legend. If you refused to do so, you would very shortly get an
order
from the SEC suspending the effectiveness of the registration statement --
i.e. making it illegal for you to sell using that registration statement.

There are in fact a few instances where a registration statement becomes
effective without an SEC order. Sometimes the lawyers for the issuer
decide
that the SEC staff is simply wrong in the changes it is asking for, and
that
if they were to try to get a stop order from the full Commission on that
issue they would fail. Under those circumstances, you might file an
amendment to the registration statement removing the legend calling for a
delay in the effective date, and the registration statement would become
effective 20 days after filing that amendment. Effectively they are
calling
the SEC's staff's bluff. (I believe I have done that once or perhaps
twice
in over 30 years.)

My point is that you can't simply draw conclusions based on what some
statute says. Many of the most critical judgments involved in enforcing
the
statute are made by an administrative agency, and some agencies are far
more
effective than others in creating a legal scheme that makes sense.

I think selling marijuanna works much the same way, 'cept you never get your
certificate so you're always illegal. ;-)

On 24 Sep 2006 14:40:03 -0500, Dave wrote:

My point is that you can't simply draw conclusions based on what some
statute says. Many of the most critical judgments involved in enforcing the
statute are made by an administrative agency, and some agencies are far more
effective than others in creating a legal scheme that makes sense.

Interesting.

In article ,
says...



There's no question to me that common sense and the law do not always
go together. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if I were, I'd much
rather be arguing on the side of what the law actually says. That's
the point I was trying to make before my "profound ignorance" was
pointed out to me by our resident counselor.

I would quote Dickens. Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist (I believe): "If the
law supposes that, the law is a ass, a idiot." The law supposed that as
the husband he was responsible, not his wife.