But would the gentleman agree there is nothing to prevent some future Congress from coming up with whatever arbitrary definition of de minimis it might see fit to impose?
David Skaggs: “But would the gentleman agree there is nothing to prevent some future Congress from coming up with whatever arbitrary…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing potential future legislative definitions during a debate.
Share
More from David Skaggs
I am saddened by the tone of antagonism and mistrust that is already starting to creep into the proceedings. Perhaps the flaws in this resolution do not equal a violation of fundamental fairness. Due process, of course, is different from…
I am not questioning the gentleman's sincerity about taking national security issues seriously. Far be it from that. Contrary to what the gentleman is suggesting, I think we should adhere to and aspire to a particularly high standard of…
I just in closing wanted to note two other provisions. As the chairman is aware, the bill provides somewhat less funds than were requested for the section 3161 program, the transition support for workers that are being phased out of these…
But this really comes down to a pretty fundamental question, which is do you think the business of the United States courts, when involving the United States itself as a party, ought to be presumptively public business or not, yes or no…





