As reluctant as I am, I agree with Mr. Alexander. I know it's shocking.
One, he's right on the point that “far-reaching implications” is not a precisely defined term in law, and we prefer precision over non-precision; and two, I think it mines too far into what is ultimately a CDS discretion. He or she is the CDS for good reason. At some point or another you cannot regulate, by legislation or otherwise, that decision-making process.
As reluctant as I am, I don't think this amendment should pass.