I have no problem with a government agency creating regulations in order to promulgate a law passed by Congress. The alternative? Congress becomes more of a bureaucratic red tape monstrosity than it already is. The truth is that these agencies more often than not are very familiar with the topic area and are better equipped at enforcing the law passed by Congress. Now agencies are not allowed to create laws, only create regulations that promote the laws passed by Congress.
Here's an example: Recently Congress gave the IRS power to draft new regulations regarding college tuition savings plans (commonly referred to as 529 plans). Apparently it has become common place for wealthy individuals to transfer their wealth into these plans naming grandchildren as beneficiaries but end up naming only one owner (such as a child). The real reason why this is done is so the child, and not the grandchildren, can withdraw from the 529 plans thereby bypassing a 45% tax and only paying a 10% penalty plus income tax. Congress realized they were unable to deal with the intricacies of drafting effective laws defeating this kind of tax abuse.
My point is this, government agencies have much more flexibility and ability to make sure the laws of Congress are followed by enacting regulations. If Congress is really appalled at a regulation passed by an agency, they will either exert their influence on that agency to change the regulation or simply enact a law nullifying that regulation.
In short, no, I'm not bothered at all that this happens. Whether that's legal, I do know the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is. Again, I'm not bothered by it since the alternative would be unworkable and extremely inefficient. You could argue it would be counter productive to a democracy.
I live in Michigan, and like the other 49 U.S. states and remaining territories, once Congress passes a bill signed into law by the President giving a government agency the authority to promulgate a rule (i.e, regulation), it's practically the same thing as a law. The DHS has such authority. So you don't have to adhere to such "rules" but you'll find yourself either in a room with three cinder block walls and another wall with iron bars, or unwillingly make a large charitable contribution to the U.S. government.
And let me give you an example. You know those people who don't follow the "rules" of the IRS but find themselves in court and paying large fines? I'm sure they had the same attitude you did before they ended up in that situation.
This is a bigger problem than the post alludes to. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put in to effect a new rule, called the "No-Match Rule" which requires an employer to terminate an employee when receiving a letter from the DHS or the Social Security Administration (SSA), that the new employee in question doesn't exist in the SSA database. There is a period of 90 days in which to contest the no-match rule but if you're not on top of things, your employer has to fire you.
Right now there is a stay on that rule ordered by a district court in California, but it goes to show you some small error can have big consequences. See AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, No. 07-4472 (N.D. Cal filed Aug. 29, 2007. Apparently the DHS is looking into revising the rule.
The judge didn't rule in favor of Spamhaus but instead, denied e360's proposed order which was an attempt to enforce the court's original judgment. That original judgment still stands against Spamhaus. Although there are obvious issues of enforcement, this may certainly be an impediment against Spamhaus in the future (that is, if they ever expand operations into the U.S. or some other scenario). There is an appeal pending in which the original judgment could be overruled but a brief has yet to be filed.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear GM, Chrysler and Ford are making the same complaint -- that the used car market is eating up their profits.
I have no problem with a government agency creating regulations in order to promulgate a law passed by Congress. The alternative? Congress becomes more of a bureaucratic red tape monstrosity than it already is. The truth is that these agencies more often than not are very familiar with the topic area and are better equipped at enforcing the law passed by Congress. Now agencies are not allowed to create laws, only create regulations that promote the laws passed by Congress.
Here's an example: Recently Congress gave the IRS power to draft new regulations regarding college tuition savings plans (commonly referred to as 529 plans). Apparently it has become common place for wealthy individuals to transfer their wealth into these plans naming grandchildren as beneficiaries but end up naming only one owner (such as a child). The real reason why this is done is so the child, and not the grandchildren, can withdraw from the 529 plans thereby bypassing a 45% tax and only paying a 10% penalty plus income tax. Congress realized they were unable to deal with the intricacies of drafting effective laws defeating this kind of tax abuse.
My point is this, government agencies have much more flexibility and ability to make sure the laws of Congress are followed by enacting regulations. If Congress is really appalled at a regulation passed by an agency, they will either exert their influence on that agency to change the regulation or simply enact a law nullifying that regulation.
In short, no, I'm not bothered at all that this happens. Whether that's legal, I do know the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is. Again, I'm not bothered by it since the alternative would be unworkable and extremely inefficient. You could argue it would be counter productive to a democracy.
I live in Michigan, and like the other 49 U.S. states and remaining territories, once Congress passes a bill signed into law by the President giving a government agency the authority to promulgate a rule (i.e, regulation), it's practically the same thing as a law. The DHS has such authority. So you don't have to adhere to such "rules" but you'll find yourself either in a room with three cinder block walls and another wall with iron bars, or unwillingly make a large charitable contribution to the U.S. government.
And let me give you an example. You know those people who don't follow the "rules" of the IRS but find themselves in court and paying large fines? I'm sure they had the same attitude you did before they ended up in that situation.
This is a bigger problem than the post alludes to. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put in to effect a new rule, called the "No-Match Rule" which requires an employer to terminate an employee when receiving a letter from the DHS or the Social Security Administration (SSA), that the new employee in question doesn't exist in the SSA database. There is a period of 90 days in which to contest the no-match rule but if you're not on top of things, your employer has to fire you.
Right now there is a stay on that rule ordered by a district court in California, but it goes to show you some small error can have big consequences. See AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, No. 07-4472 (N.D. Cal filed Aug. 29, 2007. Apparently the DHS is looking into revising the rule.
More here
The judge didn't rule in favor of Spamhaus but instead, denied e360's proposed order which was an attempt to enforce the court's original judgment. That original judgment still stands against Spamhaus. Although there are obvious issues of enforcement, this may certainly be an impediment against Spamhaus in the future (that is, if they ever expand operations into the U.S. or some other scenario). There is an appeal pending in which the original judgment could be overruled but a brief has yet to be filed.