>(a) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—There shall be no judicial review of compliance or noncompliance with any provision of this Act.
>(b) ENFORCEABILITY.—No provision of this Act shall be construed to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any administrative or judicial action.
I'm not particularly familiar with the intricacies of self-regulation in the US government; if judges can't review whether an agency is following the rule, and individuals don't have grounds to force the matter because it's not a "right or benefit", does this mean that there's no enforceability at all, or is there some other mechanism not mentioned here that kicks in by default?
Thank you
If a law is too long for a representative to have read it (Patriot act, ACA) then Congress should not vote on it until they've had enough time to read it.
I propose 10 days + (number of pages / 5) after it's been introduced to the public.
Five pages alone can require a lot of reading.
But bills often have more pages than days in an elected congress (two years is just over 700 days) so you have to divide out
No, they were writing a law, which is different from regulation; law isn't covered, but not because it is explicitly excluded, but because its not included, at a minimum because it is written by Congress, and this only covers work product of Executive agencies.
But more importantly, they've specifically acted to make the law completely unenforceable (see Sec. 6.)
