Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
I don't see anything
The link is Hard to See.
Here you go...
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...C:16-3071:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1903655:S:0
Here is the actual "Two for One" executive order for your reading pleasure:
Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
Looks like OMB makes the final call via providing details to each agency and "oversight". Referred to in the above document as "Director". The Donald aka "Disrupter in Chief" /lol /joke has chosen for confirmation, Rep. Mick Mulvaney, to head the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Time will tell with details but at it's core this is a welcome and rather unusual first step for any President on the face of the planet or Mars to take.
Edited for clarity!
Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
Looks like OMB makes the final call via providing details to each agency and "oversight". Referred to in the above document as "Director". The Donald aka "Disrupter in Chief" /lol /joke has chosen for confirmation, Rep. Mick Mulvaney, to head the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Time will tell with details but at it's core this is a welcome and rather unusual first step for any President on the face of the planet or Mars to take.
Edited for clarity!
Last edited:
It kind of feels like, we're going to remodel this house, and we need to stay under budget. Instead of redesigning the whole house we'll have a new rule, for every nail you want to use, you have to find some place in the house where you can remove two nails.
I was in my attic the other day and looked up to see numerous nails that missed the rafters. Now I'm wondering exactly how many nails are holding down my roof.
Those are nails from the shingles.... Silly people
Those weren't shingling nails. Them were nails for holding the plywood down (they were next to the rafters...a clear miss).Those are nails from the shingles.... Silly people
Maybe you had shoddy roofers who just used the wrong nail?
never know meh all i know is i hate being in the attic and poking my head with them damn nails.No one would use 16 penny nails (or whatever they use for nailing plywood to the rafters) as shingling nails. They wouldn't work. Never poked my head with them but maybe it would do me good.Maybe you had shoddy roofers who just used the wrong nail?
Yeah... As if that Isn't a Childish concept, but How (Exactly) do you Pull Out a Nail?
I Only know of 3 Basic Ways to do it.
1 - Have Congress pass a Law that makes the Pulling that Nail Legal to do so.
2 - If the Court say that the Nail Shouldn't be there. (Kinda like what we are seeing in Part in Indiana)
3 - Have the Issuing Federal Agency Issue another Nail that Retract/Resends the Original Nail.
Think how Totally Screwed the Crooked Authors of that Indiana Monopolistic POS Legislation must feel right about Now?
And what a Complete Boob the Indiana Attorney General's Office must look like.
Because they Crashed the e-Cigarette Market in Indiana just so a Select Few could have a Complete Monopoly. But Now, if OOS Companies are Free to deal with Indiana Vapers, they are left Holding an Empty Bag.
Last edited:
I assume the idea is along the lines of number 3, although, in reading the order they don't have to do it all simultaneously. The order just says they have to identify two regulations that could be cut, in order to pay for the new regulation.
I wonder if there's a snowball's chance in hell of a fiscally positive regulation like the FSPTCA ever getting cut.
Here's the Problem with going with Door Number 3.
You have to Basically do the Entire Rule Making Process Again.
So remember all those Steps we went thru with "Deeming"? With the Flow Chgart and the Draft Period and the Public Comment Period and the Back n' Forth and Up and Down with Hearings and CSPAN and the whatnot.
You would Basically have to Do It All Over Again. And Not with 1 Regulation. But with 2 Regulations.
Door Number 1 isn't all that Viable. Because getting Congress to Agree on Dis-Agreeing is about as Hard as having them Agree to Agree. And what happens if the Mid-Term Elections don't go as Planned?
And if Door Number 2 was Viable, it probably would All Ready have been Done. Not Liking a Regulation and Finding a Regulation to be Non-Legally Enacted in a Federal Court are Two Very, Very Different things.
Now do you see why I made the Reference to a de Facto Ban?
While you guys are building homes and HAMMERING nails, you might want to ask formerly acting AG Sally Yates for advice. She just got fired by Trumpster. She ordered the AG attorneys not to defend the Trump Exec Order for refugees. Thus Exec Orders appear to have large amounts of "teeth". Perhaps a bit of a stretch in the eyes of some but interesting texture and background for our own regulatory issues with the Desk Killers at the FDA!
Yeah, I got it.
What if one of the three gets shot down, are they all out? The whole process is confusing enough, now we've got two for one thrown in the mix.
You don't need all 3 to Rescind a Regulation. Just 1 of the possible 3 ways to go about it.
Here is a Link I posted a Long Time ago in one of these Deeming threads that talks about Repealing a Regulation.
What new presidents can (and cannot) do about regulation
Similar threads
- Locked
