Part of 1996 Anti-Terror Law Overturned (9th Circuit: Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!)

foxnews.com ^ | 12/04/03 | AP

[mrsmith]

Of course I did not criticize that part of the opinion, I assume no one disputes the idiocies I did point out.

Specifically, that in this case there is no dispute whether they knew of the designation. It has nothing to do with the case before the court (Marbury v. Madison quote not needed I assume).
Publishing in the Register was sufficient notice, perhaps sometimes a jury won't find it sufficient and I'm fine with allowing them to do so.

It is most interesting to me that a Constitutionally protected "right to interfere in foreign affairs" seems to be inherently assumed here, requiring a high scrutiny by the court, despite the Congress' expressed power to regulate foreign commerce and to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations.
We've been debating that since George Logan went to France in 1798, and I see no authority for the court to preempt the public, legislative and executive role in that debate.

BTW the Hatch quote of course cannot be found at the date or page the Ninth cites.
Hatch: ...this antiterrorism bill will prohibit, in a constitutional manner, fundraising in this country by specific, designated foreign terrorist groups. Once designated, these groups will no longer be permitted to use American-raised funds to spread terror here and abroad.
Snowe: Most important is the provision in this bill that will cut off the ability of terrorist groups such as Hamas to raise huge sums in the United States for supposedly `humanitarian' purposes, where in reality a large part of those funds go toward conducting terrorist activities.
House Rpt.104-383:
Several terrorist groups have established footholds within ethnic or resident alien communities in the United States. Many of these organizations operate under the cloak of a humanitarian or charitable exercise...