Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lrbguy, post: 3156065, member: 88829&quot;]This court made no such error.&nbsp; It applied a principle of U.S. government the implications of which people from other nations may not quite understand; namely the balance of powers. Based on the precedent from <i>Ancient Coin I </i>this court deferred to the State Department handling of definitions.&nbsp; They did so explicitly on the principle of the separation of powers and the parity of the executive and judicial branches of government.&nbsp; Simply put, the court was constrained to uphold whatever definitions the State Department (executive branch) had worked out or established in its diplomatic solution to the request of another State signatory to the UNESCO accord.&nbsp; By its own statement neither this court nor the earlier court in 2012 was free to specify what the State Department had left open on the matter of whether coins were to be considered a type of <i>archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party.&nbsp; </i>State could decide as the diplomacy might dictate, without interference from the Judiciary.&nbsp; That is what they claimed in 2012, and that is what they upheld here in denying the Guild&#039;s call to revisit the question of definition.</p><p><br /></p><p>If the Guild wishes to challenge the question of why coins ought to be excluded from CPIA agreements, the Court demands that they take that up with the State Department and its CPAC by whatever means they can.&nbsp; The Judiciary will not enter into that battle.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in