Actually, a rule and a regulation are not exactly the same thing, although for most practical purposes the terms may be thought to be interchangeable. Breaking a reg is a bigger deal than violating a regulation, which is more formal and, I think, meant to cover more situations. Rules are rescinded more easily. The process for adopting a regulation within an agency is more complex and for a rule, so rules tend to come out more quickly when an issue comes up under a statute. According to AI, a single individual might put out a rule, which would not be the case with a regulation. A rule, at least in the securities area, tends to be more chatty, if you will -- there may be hypotheticals, e.g.
I'm sure there are far worse examples than this. USAID is widely recognized as being a front for a well-known three-letter "Intelligence" Agency whose opeartives frequently operate under AID cover. Its selection of Agency Heads points in the same direction.
Isn't it dangerous to allow the "agencies" to make "rules"? I thought that was the problem all along; hence, the recent Supreme Court ruling on "chevron deference" to put a stop to agency rule making.
No, the SC ruling meant that agency rules could be litigated in courts, which no longer are obligated to listen to the agency above plaintiff experts. It removed a modicum of authority from the agencies but they still make all the rules.
Thank you Dr Nass. This is a subject seldom talked about nor understood. So grateful for you always being on top of SO MANY THINGS!! Truly grateful to you.
God bless you and keep you safe Dr. Nass.
Let's hope President Trump can start reversing ALL the evil executive orders, and everything else in every department in our government ASAP.
There is a backdoor to the "good cause" exception in the definition of the word "promulgate" and it is entirely applicable in most of these situations. To promulgate is to formally proclaim or declare that a new statutory or administrative law is enacted after its final approval. NEW is the operative here. Most of the regulations that need to be changed had regulations which proceeded them. Take fuel economy standards. When the standards were put in place there were no standards, those prior standards are not "new" as they existed before the current standards. All that has to be done to change the standard without giving "good cause" and not requiring all the steps of normal rulemaking is to say, "We are going back to the old standard". Prior standards were already published, commented on and promulgated, no need to do it again.
Yes, it will cause a hue and cry to arise but it is well within the rules to do so. The important part is to immediately get rid of any government employees who try to keep going with the current rules. It will apply easily to any regulation that came from the executive and never passed through Congress. Yes there will be groups which will sue and we just need to do what the democrats always did, change the venue to a court that is sympathetic to the cause and have the case thrown out for lack of evidence or standing.
We've got 2 years to democrat proof the Federal government, let's not waste any of it with stupid public comment on rules which were already approved in the past.
I'm watching the appointments Trump is making and while they have been good, I don't yet see where he has named Brandon Herrera to head up ATF. That needs to happen so he can fold it up and remove all of the employees. Shall not be infringed means ATF is wholly unconstitutional.
Didn’t Biden and Trump use executive orders? Warp Speed is what we don’t need. We need Congress and work of representative for accountability and law that won’t change quickly. Garbage in, garbage out.
A good start would be to suspend all legal legislation since 9/11. When our laws have lies at the foundation, we have nothing! Organized crime has it all.
Did any one else read where Trump is not using approved communications because they leaked his private talks during his 1st term? I spose Elon can arrange something more secure than the State Department.
Ah, the maze of government. Now, if it doesn't quickly and consistently show justice, truth and moral presence on a visible scale, there will be no cooperation from the masses. No one wants chaos but chaos will only be sewn by the absence of government to do right and right soon as the people, the masses on the streets, cities, towns, valleys and nations now have a mandate for that and nothing less. Even their AI sees that. Miracles overnight? No. Real signatures displayed that we are moving away from globalist's agenda is not just necessary, but crucial. And the people won't be fooled with crumbs and fake pomp and circumstance.
This would seem at first glance to reverse the weakening of the Chevron deference, and so may not be well advised.
On the other hand...the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “good cause” exception could for example permit the CIA to forgo notice and comment on a requirement to shut itself down.
Ok I got it, agencies can forego notice and comment on proposed rules that would end propaganda, censorship, murder, treason, and other crimes against We The People.
This also encompasses the ground of the "Chevron Deference", recently overturned by SCOTUS. This now requires the Courts, not the Agencies, to interpret Laws and opening extreme Agency actions to legal recourse, as was the case in the USDA example.
This was a significant legal victory over out of control Government Agencies and it would be foolish to revert to this approach, especially since its use can and will be legally challenged. IMHO
It is not a reversion. I see it as complementary. Chevron is really about courts looking at rules and increasing their latitude--but as someone pointed out, we have 2 good years and we need to get a lot done and moving through the courts is SLOW
but some of the races are still being counted and some are very close.
ANother thing is that there are several so called progressive groups for peace and for environment etc and they are on alert to attack the new Trump administration for various reasons. I happen to still be on the lists and see this after the election and just before the election also--how sickening.
Actually, a rule and a regulation are not exactly the same thing, although for most practical purposes the terms may be thought to be interchangeable. Breaking a reg is a bigger deal than violating a regulation, which is more formal and, I think, meant to cover more situations. Rules are rescinded more easily. The process for adopting a regulation within an agency is more complex and for a rule, so rules tend to come out more quickly when an issue comes up under a statute. According to AI, a single individual might put out a rule, which would not be the case with a regulation. A rule, at least in the securities area, tends to be more chatty, if you will -- there may be hypotheticals, e.g.
Thanks, Carolyn!
In order to make any new rule you must get rid of two!
Confidentiality protects fools from having their sins exposed. Watch collateral murder. https://collateralmurder.com/
I'm sure there are far worse examples than this. USAID is widely recognized as being a front for a well-known three-letter "Intelligence" Agency whose opeartives frequently operate under AID cover. Its selection of Agency Heads points in the same direction.
Isn't it dangerous to allow the "agencies" to make "rules"? I thought that was the problem all along; hence, the recent Supreme Court ruling on "chevron deference" to put a stop to agency rule making.
No, the SC ruling meant that agency rules could be litigated in courts, which no longer are obligated to listen to the agency above plaintiff experts. It removed a modicum of authority from the agencies but they still make all the rules.
Thank you Dr Nass. This is a subject seldom talked about nor understood. So grateful for you always being on top of SO MANY THINGS!! Truly grateful to you.
God bless you and keep you safe Dr. Nass.
Let's hope President Trump can start reversing ALL the evil executive orders, and everything else in every department in our government ASAP.
The rule of freedom is meant to be.
Rule of freedom for you and me.
Rule of freedom from sea to shining sea...sea to shining sea....sea to shining
There is a backdoor to the "good cause" exception in the definition of the word "promulgate" and it is entirely applicable in most of these situations. To promulgate is to formally proclaim or declare that a new statutory or administrative law is enacted after its final approval. NEW is the operative here. Most of the regulations that need to be changed had regulations which proceeded them. Take fuel economy standards. When the standards were put in place there were no standards, those prior standards are not "new" as they existed before the current standards. All that has to be done to change the standard without giving "good cause" and not requiring all the steps of normal rulemaking is to say, "We are going back to the old standard". Prior standards were already published, commented on and promulgated, no need to do it again.
Yes, it will cause a hue and cry to arise but it is well within the rules to do so. The important part is to immediately get rid of any government employees who try to keep going with the current rules. It will apply easily to any regulation that came from the executive and never passed through Congress. Yes there will be groups which will sue and we just need to do what the democrats always did, change the venue to a court that is sympathetic to the cause and have the case thrown out for lack of evidence or standing.
We've got 2 years to democrat proof the Federal government, let's not waste any of it with stupid public comment on rules which were already approved in the past.
Thank you for this--excellent.
I'm watching the appointments Trump is making and while they have been good, I don't yet see where he has named Brandon Herrera to head up ATF. That needs to happen so he can fold it up and remove all of the employees. Shall not be infringed means ATF is wholly unconstitutional.
Didn’t Biden and Trump use executive orders? Warp Speed is what we don’t need. We need Congress and work of representative for accountability and law that won’t change quickly. Garbage in, garbage out.
A good start would be to suspend all legal legislation since 9/11. When our laws have lies at the foundation, we have nothing! Organized crime has it all.
Did any one else read where Trump is not using approved communications because they leaked his private talks during his 1st term? I spose Elon can arrange something more secure than the State Department.
Absolutely not! Get rid of agency rulemaking, only Congress can constitutionally pass laws.
Ah, the maze of government. Now, if it doesn't quickly and consistently show justice, truth and moral presence on a visible scale, there will be no cooperation from the masses. No one wants chaos but chaos will only be sewn by the absence of government to do right and right soon as the people, the masses on the streets, cities, towns, valleys and nations now have a mandate for that and nothing less. Even their AI sees that. Miracles overnight? No. Real signatures displayed that we are moving away from globalist's agenda is not just necessary, but crucial. And the people won't be fooled with crumbs and fake pomp and circumstance.
This would seem at first glance to reverse the weakening of the Chevron deference, and so may not be well advised.
On the other hand...the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “good cause” exception could for example permit the CIA to forgo notice and comment on a requirement to shut itself down.
Ok I got it, agencies can forego notice and comment on proposed rules that would end propaganda, censorship, murder, treason, and other crimes against We The People.
They can skip the notice and comments on ending wars, and just end them (peacefully).
Dutch government admits Covid was a military operation
https://patientmaktpatientcv.substack.com/p/dutch-government-admits-covid-was
I can't believe we live in a world where it's easier to get Fentanyl than Raw milk....
This also encompasses the ground of the "Chevron Deference", recently overturned by SCOTUS. This now requires the Courts, not the Agencies, to interpret Laws and opening extreme Agency actions to legal recourse, as was the case in the USDA example.
This was a significant legal victory over out of control Government Agencies and it would be foolish to revert to this approach, especially since its use can and will be legally challenged. IMHO
It is not a reversion. I see it as complementary. Chevron is really about courts looking at rules and increasing their latitude--but as someone pointed out, we have 2 good years and we need to get a lot done and moving through the courts is SLOW
With control of the house and senate this could be done through them which would impede their reversal should the democrats ever reassume power.
getting stuff through Congress is not simple or quick, and may require horse trading. What do you want Trump to give up to Congressmembers?
The more we can do legally with the agencies, the better.
The agencies are illegitimate and need to be eliminated. If Republicans control the House that’s the way to ensure the changes are permanent.
but some of the races are still being counted and some are very close.
ANother thing is that there are several so called progressive groups for peace and for environment etc and they are on alert to attack the new Trump administration for various reasons. I happen to still be on the lists and see this after the election and just before the election also--how sickening.
It can’t happen until January anyways...the votes will be counted by then.