[MD] Section 8 - low quality

[ml]

The media IS asleep at the wheel on this one, but
unless the Constitution has been officially abrogated,
this is as useless a passage, in the wishful thinking
way of things, as those statements in contracts that
companies use stating that they are not responsible
even to the extent of gross negligence.

A company can't deny gross negligence contractually.

A branch of government can't make themselves immune
to judicial review for operational policy / actions...

The courts won't 'go after'  that piece of silliness and
if they agree with the specific actions of their sister branch
of government they will ignore the implied slight.
However, if someone's underthings get bunched about
the specifics, the courts may find themselves in a position
to comment.

If an individual gets too high and mighty in such a case,
judicial contempt is a nasty piece of work.

thanks--ml



----- Original Message -----
From: "MarshaV" <marshalz at charter.net>
To: "MD Forum" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 1:46 PM
Subject: [MD] Section 8 - low quality


>
> This might be worth a call to your senators and representative.
>
> "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are
> non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be
> reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
>
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.
html
>
>
>
>
> .
> .
>
> Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the
stars.........
> .
> .
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/