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 supporting  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]