I wanted to see if this current discussion isn't leading us to change the
way precedent-based Anglo Saxon Common Law differs from (Roman/
Justinian/
Napoleonic) rule-based European law. And what this tells us about the
future
trends in law internationally as well as locally. Both Hank Paulson
(US
Treasury Scy) and Eliot Spitzer (NY Governor) are now calling for
replacing
the SEC reliance on rules with principles. Already the SEC heavily relies
on
a form of administrative laws called "No Action Letters" where the
regulators
say what possible interpretations of the law they do not intend to
enforce.
Recently we have also had folks like dAmato and Spitzer sup****ting
the
"federalism" of state regulators in finance, banking and insurance
against
folks like Paulson who want to ensure the playing field is nearly
identical
anywhere in the world so as to prevent forum shopping and exchange
abritrage.
I am also curious how this interplays with the debate on judicial
restraint
and original intent. I'm definitely looking to ensure we deeply
comprehend
the philosophical differences but without rancor. I'm getting the feeling
not
everything has bene thought out for its global implications.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus,
BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for
Bimbos]
