View Single Post
Old 07-19-2011, 09:22   #14
Spats McGee
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 452
For clarity of my response, I've rearranged your post a little.

Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
You mean the Code of Federal Regulations? Specifically Code 27 which deals with the BATFE.

The Code of Federal Regulations is the interpretation of the United States Code and other statutes by Executive Agencies, the US Congress gave the authority to the Executive Agencies to publish the interpretation of the US Code because thats the only way it would get done. . . . .

What I think caused the miscommunication is when I stated that the BATFE couldn't create new rules on its own, which is true. The BATFE cannot and does not create new laws, it does however issue INTERPRETATIONS of the United States Code and other Statues as directed and necessary by the US Congress. Those are subject to the review of the Judiciary. That means that all three branches are involved.
Yes, but then we get to the question of why it was necessary to give any agency the authority to interpret the US Code. Congress has legislative authority. Can they not simply draft provisions to tell the reader what a statute means? Or is it the province of the courts to determine what a law means?

In the organizational plan that you have laid out above, I contend that a new interpretation of the law, as issued by the agency charged with the duty to enforce it, is created solely through the executive branch. Congress has delegated the authority to interpret the law. As far as I know, it is not involved in the interpretation of that law after that point. The judiciary will not come into play until a challenge is mounted. It could be months, or even years, before the judicary gets involved.

Originally Posted by FearTheBoomAndBust View Post
Now those interpretation must be reasonable, as judged by the Judicial System upon review. Now if the Executive, Judicial, and Congressional Branches all agree then it cannot be said that only one agency created a new "law".
With all due respect, I'll simply disagree. Those interpretations must be constitutional. Whether "reasonable" is the standard for constitutionality is a separate issue. When it comes to the Second Amendment, "reasonable" may or may not be the standard. I feel confident that you're familiar with both the Second and Fourth Amendments, but they make for a nice comparison and contrast.

The Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const., Amend. II.

On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const., Amend. IV.

One Amendment refers to reasonableness. The other does not.

Last edited by Spats McGee; 07-19-2011 at 09:23..
Spats McGee is offline   Reply With Quote