<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Boycott Woes of Cairo</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/93/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/93</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Deal</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/93#comment-474</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Deal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:27:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/93#comment-474</guid>
		<description>As Eric Hirshschorn noted 15 years ago, the information furnishing provisions of the antiboycott regs are not supported by IEEPA (50 USC 1702(b)).  Furthermore, they are very likely invalid under the First Amendment case law that has developed since the one circuit court's opinion (Trane v. Baldridge)in the 70s.  When is someone going to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to these rogue agencies?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As Eric Hirshschorn noted 15 years ago, the information furnishing provisions of the antiboycott regs are not supported by IEEPA (50 USC 1702(b)).  Furthermore, they are very likely invalid under the First Amendment case law that has developed since the one circuit court&#8217;s opinion (Trane v. Baldridge)in the 70s.  When is someone going to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to these rogue agencies?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
