[blml] Law 24

[Eric Landau]

At 11:37 AM 6/6/06, Grattan wrote:

>From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
>
> > It has been made quite clear on BLML, however,
> > that, in the official opinion of the WBF, L80F does
> > provide for Regulating Authority to change it, effectively
> > without restriction.
>
>+=+ Wilful misrepresentation. What has been repeated
>on numerous occasions over many years is that Law 80F
>is not a restriction on regulations authorized under other
>Laws, for example 80E, 78D, 40E, 40D, each of which
>is  self-contained. I first encountered this stance in the
>Committee when we were chaired by Edgar Theus but
>the question was treated as generally accepted so
>presumably it had been settled before my time.

I'd like to think of my statement as "misrepresentation", but I don't 
see it.  The only explicit restriction on regulating authorities in 
TFLB is in L80F, which requires that supplementary regulations be "not 
in conflict with[] these laws".  When we discussed this extensively a 
while back, someone (I don't recall who) challenged the WBF 
rerpresentatives in this forum to provide a single example of a 
regulation, or a proposed regulation, from any subordinate body, that 
the WBF has ever held to be "in conflict with these laws" and 
consequently overturned.  We are still waiting.

That the WBF has the *power* to restrict its subordinates' regulations 
doesn't effectively restrict anyone or anything if the WBF is unwilling 
to use that power.  We have been told repeatedly, however, that that is 
their policy, or at least their "attitude".

There may be some theoretical, legalistic restriction on what can be 
regulated, but as long as the WBF declines to enforce the "not in 
conflict" provision of L80F and continues to permit its subordinate 
authorities to pass whatever regulations they please, I will stand by 
"effectively without restriction".


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607