Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Administrative & Regulatory Law News, 2017-04, Vol.42 (3), p.9
Ort / Verlag
Chicago: American Bar Association
Erscheinungsjahr
2017
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
Alma/SFX Local Collection
Beschreibungen/Notizen
The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which passed the House of Representatives in January, would provide that when any federal agency promulgates a "major rule" (as statutorily defined), the rule would be ineffective unless Congress passes a joint resolution approving the rule. [...]the President usually would veto such a statute, because the President would usually support a major rule coming from an executive agency. [...]the REINS Act would not violate the rule of Chadha, because it would not allow a single house of Congress to transform an effective agency rule into an ineffective one. [...]a single house of Congress could not change the status of executive action. [...]as Justice Scalia pointed out in dissent, if the act had provided that the President may "decline to spend" an item of appropriated funds, it would have achieved the same effect but would clearly have been constitutional, because Congress may give the President discretion over spending. [...]at least sometimes, courts are influenced by what an act says, even if what the act does is constitutional. Congress would not be well-positioned to form responsible judgments on the highly technical matters covered by many major rules. [...]while Congress's desire to...