In The First Place, Lawyers Better Remember

After All, Advocates, Including Advocates For States, Are Like Managers Of Pugilistic And Election Contestants In That They Have A Propensity For Claiming Everything.

If One Starts With The Assumption That, In The Absence Of Specific Congressional Authority, A Fixed Rule Of Law Precludes Contracting Officers From Providing In A Government Contract Terms Reasonably Calculated To Assure Its Performance Even Though There Be No Money Loss Through A Particular Default, There Is No Problem. But Answers Are Not Obtained By Putting The Wrong Question, And Thereby Begging The Real One.

It Would Be A Narrow Conception Of Jurisprudence To Confine The Notion Of "laws" To What Is Found Written On The Statute Books, And To Disregard The Gloss Which Life Has Written Upon It.

Anybody Can Decide A Question If Only A Single Principle Is In Controversy.

Is That Which Was Deemed To Be Of So Fundamental A Nature As To Be Written Into The Constitution To Endure For All Times To Be The Sport Of Shifting Winds Of Doctrine?