We are reading actually from the substitute. In any event, it says, ``reasonably identifiable, significant favorable effects, quantifiable and nonquantifiable, including social and environmental health and economic effects.'' We did not want to go into a laundry list because my friend knows the old rule about specifying one thing excludes those matters not specified. You will remember the old rule from law school. That is the problem here. But it is, I think, really clear. To get back to your question of the underlying statute governing, I insist that it is absolutely clear. Nevertheless, I would recommend to my colleagues a clarification, if the clarification does not inject its own ambiguity.
David Cay Johnston: “We are reading actually from the substitute. In any event, it says, ``reasonably identifiable, significant favorable…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the clarity and implications of a legislative substitute.
Share
More from David Cay Johnston
Let us take this one at a time. You agree with me the Government has no right to take away vested rights, and would be liable for the violation?
There are many reasons to be against the McCain amendment, but the clearest, most indelible, most compelling reason is that to cut these funds now would subject the U.S. Government to greater penalties for termination costs than it would…
The Senator is aware that Vietnam is anxious to have aid from the American Bar Association in helping them develop the rule of law. We have not had that kind of request from Libya and Cuba and others. They are anxious to develop the rule…
I understand. But after they made that decision and you say it is right then to help them set up a legal system, would you not use the American Bar Association and the International Law Institute, the United States-Vietnam Trade----





