Puzzling case

[Mark Tushnet]

John Noble questions whether it should be permissible that "[s]ome clerk
in the DMV office is supposed to decide what is contrary to public
policy."  Suppose the elected Secretary of State directs that all
denials be routed through his/her office for review by the Secretary.
Does that change the analysis?  [Does John know that this is *not* true?
-- my guess is that, precisely for the reasons people are concerned
about, denials are subject to some sort of internal review, although my
guess is also that the review doesn't ordinarily include the Secretary
of State.]  More important, I'd note that this sort of analysis
transforms a free speech analysis into a "due process of lawmaking" one.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tushnet.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 242 bytes
Desc: Card for Mark Tushnet
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20010810/ca41a1b5/tushnet.vcf