Originally Posted by
ORDofcr
I never said it was criminal law. Regulatory = Administrative law. Excerpt from Wikipedia on "Code of Federal Regulations":
Well of course the CFR is up for interpretation, and you will interpret it differently than I do but here's what I believe is a good example. 49 CFR § 1540.107 (a) I can say that this means that the TSA can introduce any ridiculous rules about how to come through the checkpoint they want, because it says you may not enter the sterile area without submitting to whatever screening and/or inspection of your person and accessible property that the TSA chooses to conduct at that time. Basically you must comply with whatever screening is being done in order to come through the checkpoint. You may say that it means something completely different. And I know you will. It's a two way street and I may be one one side and you are on the other, although sometimes we are on the same side, looking across and saying "WTH were they thinking"...
Then you must also realize that decisions related to administrative rule violations are not subject to arrest of a "suspect" for violations. Adjudication of administrative laws are done by a kangaroo court within the same agency that alleges the violation. That is a distinct conflict of interest and an outright violation of the principal of separation of powers. It is a very expensive, and very lengthy process to even try to get administrative rules challenged in court. And even lengthier to try and appeal an adverse agency/kangaroo court decision into the regular court system.
this is no secret. And it is a key reason that agencies LOVE administrative law. It allows them to make arbitrary rules, operate as the "police", and adjudicate the "violations" with very little oversight. And your agency and it's parent - DHS & TSA - are especially in love with administrative law because they can hide behind the secrecy of "it's for security".