http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/369 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/369/comment-page-1#comment-96595 Leland Marta Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:10:11 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=369#comment-96595 Great Post, I was wondering did you hear that Israel has banned the Ipad? seems the signal strength is a violation or so they say. Great Post, I was wondering did you hear that Israel has banned the Ipad? seems the signal strength is a violation or so they say.

]]> http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/369/comment-page-1#comment-19892 Mike Deal Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:46:02 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=369#comment-19892 Once again, OFAC is in open and willful violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and has exceeded whatever powers delegated by IEEPA. 50USC1702 grants only the power to regulate interests in property held by foreign states and powers to the same extent as TWEA 5(b), which it copies. IEEPA does not grant the power to regulate trade, which was regulated under TWEA Section 3, or Services. The legislative history of the 1942 amendments to TWEA was very clear on the limitations of Sec. 5(b), but OFAC has largely ignored both that legislative history and the legislative history of the 1976 and 1977 statutes resulting in the current version of IEEPA. Furhtermore, OFAC has falsely claimed exclusion from the entirety of the APA under the APA's "foreign affairs function" exclusion from rulemaking, when in fact the 1946 legislative history, often cited by SCOTUS in APA cases, makes it clear that the foreign affairs function exclusion is limited to actual diplomatic activities entrusted to the executive branch under the Constitution, and does not reach regulation of foreign commerce, which is a plenary power of Congress. Indeed, the regulation of foreign commerce was one of the areas of public concern the APA was intended to reach, in reaction to the Rooseveltian accretion of power to the executive branch. Once again, OFAC is in open and willful violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and has exceeded whatever powers delegated by IEEPA. 50USC1702 grants only the power to regulate interests in property held by foreign states and powers to the same extent as TWEA 5(b), which it copies. IEEPA does not grant the power to regulate trade, which was regulated under TWEA Section 3, or Services. The legislative history of the 1942 amendments to TWEA was very clear on the limitations of Sec. 5(b), but OFAC has largely ignored both that legislative history and the legislative history of the 1976 and 1977 statutes resulting in the current version of IEEPA. Furhtermore, OFAC has falsely claimed exclusion from the entirety of the APA under the APA’s “foreign affairs function” exclusion from rulemaking, when in fact the 1946 legislative history, often cited by SCOTUS in APA cases, makes it clear that the foreign affairs function exclusion is limited to actual diplomatic activities entrusted to the executive branch under the Constitution, and does not reach regulation of foreign commerce, which is a plenary power of Congress. Indeed, the regulation of foreign commerce was one of the areas of public concern the APA was intended to reach, in reaction to the Rooseveltian accretion of power to the executive branch.

]]>