The nondelegation doctrine's "intelligible principle" requirement has been around since the 1930s, but I think the consensus is that the courts have backed away from applying it. I merely suggesting returning to a previous perceived status quo. Alternatively, Congress may have gotten better at complying with it, though this is probably not true of state legislatures, particularly those that do not have strong judicial enforcement of the "intelligible principle" requirement.
Illinois has a legislative committee that is empowered to veto regulations. It became a central issue in the Governor Blagojevich impeachment, as one of the grounds was that he instructed his agency to ignore the veto. He had created an unfunded insurance program through rulemaking after the legislature had failed to pass it. He argued the committee was unconstitutional, but impeachment hearings are not judicial proceedings.
Most of the time what happens is an agency promulgates rules and the committee suggests modest changes that are readily agreed to or points out legal restraints that may have been overlooked as outside the agency's area of specialization. The committee (really its full-time staff) portrays itself as administrative rule experts. The state court has repeatedly refused to address whether the legislative role is constitutional, which seems to have created the framework for agency and committee to avoid controversy.
I don't have strong feelings on this, but several states have some form of legislative veto in their constitutions. I don't like that Illinois' veto is in the hands of a committee instead of a body of the whole. Overall, though it probably improves rulemaking quality and it might be more needed at the state level where there is usually scant attention paid to state agencies by anyone.
I believe the legislature should express an intelligible principle sufficient to guide and control agency rulemaking. If the legislature cannot do that, then it needs to study the issue more, including if it wishes direct the agency to issue a report. I think there are a few issues with legislative delegation: It is undemocratic, agencies pursue their own agendas, and the regulatory state conflates expertise with legitimate public policy issues. I think requiring the legislature to make the nature of the delegation as clear as possible will ameliorate these issues. Particularly since violating many regulations is a criminal offense.
I think part of the D-League issue for football is that the age curve on football is particularly unforgiving: Offensive players: here. Defensive players: here. In particular, defensive players peak at 23 and running backs at 24, and begin to decline significantly at age 27/28. Teams will want to start these guys early. OTOH, quarterbacks peak at 28 and remain pretty good for at least another 3-5 years. Offensive line similar.
I understand these curves to be descriptive, so if NFL does things differently like lower the age requirement or get more involved in development, these things could change. But there is not a lot of time for development, what there is would require taking on college, and would still probably result in a wide divergence based upon position, more so than other sports because football positions are more specialized.
The Idaho S.Ct. ruled 3-2 that lawmakers have the authority to veto executive-branch proposals. The article is about an amendment proposed to make that clear in case the Court composition changes. As I understand the state court's ruling, the law was upheld because the legislature had delegated its own lawmaking powers to the executive and therefore it was permissible to condition the delegation.
Part of the issue w/ Kirk I believe, as someone who will have to decide whether or not to vote for him, is that he did have a stroke during his single term and did not cast any votes for awhile or have much public exposure. I know how he wants to position himself: socially-moderate, fiscally conservative suburban Republican with an interest in foreign policy (that most voters don't care about). Don't want to fault the guy for something out of his control, but six years later I don't know much more about him than I did last election, except he is an incumbent now.
Part of the reason for skepticism of bunting in general is that it reduces outcomes to either a batter on first or an out. While the sacrifice has the additional cost of an out, a lot of the same issues still stand. More often its going to be better to swing away, where the outcomes are either going to be an out, batter on first, second, third or home.
I think that bunting is a skill, but I'm not certain that everyone can be good at it. I mean there are reasons certain players are getting extreme shifts, and I think they lack a certain versatility in handling the bat.
I agree that sabermetrics is skeptical about the ability to locate where a ball is hit, but I think its also skeptical about the value of bunting. And the guys that tend to get the shift tend not be good bunters at all, they pop it up to the catcher, hit it back at the pitcher, fail to bunt on third strike.
I would posit one theory is that greater access/use of stats means the success of the shift can be evaluated. Maybe the eye test is good enough with a great, established hitter like Williams, but with players without such a profile, anytime an extra-base dribbled through the left side of the field, the manager looks like an idiot.
The last ruler to be elected to this seat was some secret Muslim from Kenya, and he just wandered off after a few years because he was bored. People die, they leave, they grow apart, that's life man, don't be afraid of commitment.
Here is an excerpt from an Atlantic Monthly explainer on the issues surrounding the Temple Mount from 2014:
Owing to the delicate nature of everything associated with the site, the name Temple Mount doesn't even cover all of the theological bases. Last week, the Palestinian Liberation Organization demanded that media stop using the term "Temple Mount" to describe the venue, which it says doesn't "adhere to international law." The Temple Mount, the widely used term for the site in English, is known as the Haram al-Sharif or Noble Sanctuary by Muslims. (Cautious diplomats employ all of the aforementioned names.)
This just reaffirms my priors that the UN is not a place for diplomats or serious discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And addressing one side of the issues pretty much guaranteed that the coverage would focus on the other side of the issues. Not a surprising oversight given the sponsoring-countries lack a free press. At least they removed the bit about Israel planting Jewish fake graves.
I'm not sure, but a lot of administrative agency determinations of similar magnitude are subject to judicial review. If so, rescheduling without developing a record will result in a reversal.
Out-of-state attorneys cannot practice law, so the lawyer-filed lawsuits would have required a local "dupe." Probably something like: a call from a national company needing a lawyer to represent it; we will try to do most of the work in-house; but if the case bogs down and is heading for trial we will need help from local talent and we do a lot of these, so you can expect referrals in the future. What ends up happening is that the local attorney signs pleadings relying upon the outside company, and the pleadings and backup documents look reasonably legit if you aren't assuming crazy conspiracies. If the judge finds out, he/she will refer you to the disciplinary board because will see harm to the courts.
Not enough details, but the contract could include an assignment to the "RMC" of any causes of action that arise involving the customer's reputation (as well as the proceeds thereof). I don't know that not authorizing "the" lawsuit or not signing "the pleadings" is necessarily inconsistent with signing a general assignment authorizing the RMC to appoint a lawyer to represent you on your behalf.
May or may not be legal, but I could see the plaintiff's side being plausible. Suing fictitious defendants seems like disbarment time.
Yeah that was my recollection, the Bush tax cuts were passed through the reconciliation process with expirations on them to get around the Byrd rule. The Republicans had "no hand," and seemed late to realize it.
Dunno, in my situation, which I will keep purposely vague, an employee of a home repair company (think plumbing, electrical, or handyman) showed up at the customer's home obviously very drunk or high and the customer complained to the employer who fired him/her. From the business's perspective it wasn't directly a liability issue, it was that they get business from referrals, and it was quite unlikely that this customer was going to describe their experience without emphasizing inappropriate conduct. They looked into drug-testing more as a deterrent, in the face of behavior they had not previously imagined.
The drug issue is related though. When I was researching acceptable drug-testing policies a few years ago, I read that something like half of employers had drug-testing policies, which was much higher than I had anticipated. There were a number of competing legal policies under my state's laws including support for rehab that made enforcement less than straight-forward. Whatever the merits of the laws and employer-liability concerns (all of which make sense to me in isolation), they made the policies fraught with countervailing preferences.
The short of it is, if you have a drug-testing policy, it would make perfect sense to prefer someone without a prior drug arrest over one that does not. And maybe that's half of all jobs.
Agan and Starr sent out approximately 15,000 fake job applications to employers in New York and New Jersey. Otherwise identical applications were randomized across distinctively black and white (male) names. Half the applications were sent just before and another half sent just after ban the box policies took effect. Not all firms used the box even when legal so Agan and Starr use a powerful triple-difference strategy to estimate causal effects (the black-white difference in callback rates between stores that did and did not use the box before and after the law).
Agan and Starr find that banning the box significantly increases racial discrimination in callbacks.
…employers who check criminal backgrounds are more likely to hire African American workers, especially men. This effect is stronger among those employers who report an aversion to hiring those with criminal records than among those who do not.
On “Morning Ed: The Planet {2016.10.19.W}”
My back-of-the envelope calculations are that less coal ash was recycled last year:
2015: 61.1 million tons recycled.
2014: 62.3 million tons recycled.
One could argue that this is bad news.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.10.18.T}”
The nondelegation doctrine's "intelligible principle" requirement has been around since the 1930s, but I think the consensus is that the courts have backed away from applying it. I merely suggesting returning to a previous perceived status quo. Alternatively, Congress may have gotten better at complying with it, though this is probably not true of state legislatures, particularly those that do not have strong judicial enforcement of the "intelligible principle" requirement.
"
Illinois has a legislative committee that is empowered to veto regulations. It became a central issue in the Governor Blagojevich impeachment, as one of the grounds was that he instructed his agency to ignore the veto. He had created an unfunded insurance program through rulemaking after the legislature had failed to pass it. He argued the committee was unconstitutional, but impeachment hearings are not judicial proceedings.
Most of the time what happens is an agency promulgates rules and the committee suggests modest changes that are readily agreed to or points out legal restraints that may have been overlooked as outside the agency's area of specialization. The committee (really its full-time staff) portrays itself as administrative rule experts. The state court has repeatedly refused to address whether the legislative role is constitutional, which seems to have created the framework for agency and committee to avoid controversy.
I don't have strong feelings on this, but several states have some form of legislative veto in their constitutions. I don't like that Illinois' veto is in the hands of a committee instead of a body of the whole. Overall, though it probably improves rulemaking quality and it might be more needed at the state level where there is usually scant attention paid to state agencies by anyone.
"
I believe the legislature should express an intelligible principle sufficient to guide and control agency rulemaking. If the legislature cannot do that, then it needs to study the issue more, including if it wishes direct the agency to issue a report. I think there are a few issues with legislative delegation: It is undemocratic, agencies pursue their own agendas, and the regulatory state conflates expertise with legitimate public policy issues. I think requiring the legislature to make the nature of the delegation as clear as possible will ameliorate these issues. Particularly since violating many regulations is a criminal offense.
"
I think part of the D-League issue for football is that the age curve on football is particularly unforgiving: Offensive players: here. Defensive players: here. In particular, defensive players peak at 23 and running backs at 24, and begin to decline significantly at age 27/28. Teams will want to start these guys early. OTOH, quarterbacks peak at 28 and remain pretty good for at least another 3-5 years. Offensive line similar.
I understand these curves to be descriptive, so if NFL does things differently like lower the age requirement or get more involved in development, these things could change. But there is not a lot of time for development, what there is would require taking on college, and would still probably result in a wide divergence based upon position, more so than other sports because football positions are more specialized.
"
So, men are worse at following directions? My wife would agree.
"
The Idaho S.Ct. ruled 3-2 that lawmakers have the authority to veto executive-branch proposals. The article is about an amendment proposed to make that clear in case the Court composition changes. As I understand the state court's ruling, the law was upheld because the legislature had delegated its own lawmaking powers to the executive and therefore it was permissible to condition the delegation.
My preferred solution would be judicial enforcement of the nondelegation doctrine.
On “Mediaite: Chicago Tribune Won’t Endorse GOP Senator Mark Kirk Because He Suffered a Stroke”
Part of the issue w/ Kirk I believe, as someone who will have to decide whether or not to vote for him, is that he did have a stroke during his single term and did not cast any votes for awhile or have much public exposure. I know how he wants to position himself: socially-moderate, fiscally conservative suburban Republican with an interest in foreign policy (that most voters don't care about). Don't want to fault the guy for something out of his control, but six years later I don't know much more about him than I did last election, except he is an incumbent now.
On “A Quick Note on the Antiquity of the Shift”
Part of the reason for skepticism of bunting in general is that it reduces outcomes to either a batter on first or an out. While the sacrifice has the additional cost of an out, a lot of the same issues still stand. More often its going to be better to swing away, where the outcomes are either going to be an out, batter on first, second, third or home.
I think that bunting is a skill, but I'm not certain that everyone can be good at it. I mean there are reasons certain players are getting extreme shifts, and I think they lack a certain versatility in handling the bat.
"
I agree that sabermetrics is skeptical about the ability to locate where a ball is hit, but I think its also skeptical about the value of bunting. And the guys that tend to get the shift tend not be good bunters at all, they pop it up to the catcher, hit it back at the pitcher, fail to bunt on third strike.
I would posit one theory is that greater access/use of stats means the success of the shift can be evaluated. Maybe the eye test is good enough with a great, established hitter like Williams, but with players without such a profile, anytime an extra-base dribbled through the left side of the field, the manager looks like an idiot.
"
I used to root for the Giants, but they made me into a Dodgers fan.
On “Mediaite: Chicago Tribune Won’t Endorse GOP Senator Mark Kirk Because He Suffered a Stroke”
The last ruler to be elected to this seat was some secret Muslim from Kenya, and he just wandered off after a few years because he was bored. People die, they leave, they grow apart, that's life man, don't be afraid of commitment.
On “Linky Friday #188: Master of Muskiton”
Here is an excerpt from an Atlantic Monthly explainer on the issues surrounding the Temple Mount from 2014:
This just reaffirms my priors that the UN is not a place for diplomats or serious discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And addressing one side of the issues pretty much guaranteed that the coverage would focus on the other side of the issues. Not a surprising oversight given the sponsoring-countries lack a free press. At least they removed the bit about Israel planting Jewish fake graves.
On “Morning Ed: World {2016.10.12.W}”
Or how about stop subsidizing property insurance 5 miles from the ocean?
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.10.11.T}”
Malpractice insurers don't like it either.
"
I'm not sure, but a lot of administrative agency determinations of similar magnitude are subject to judicial review. If so, rescheduling without developing a record will result in a reversal.
"
Out-of-state attorneys cannot practice law, so the lawyer-filed lawsuits would have required a local "dupe." Probably something like: a call from a national company needing a lawyer to represent it; we will try to do most of the work in-house; but if the case bogs down and is heading for trial we will need help from local talent and we do a lot of these, so you can expect referrals in the future. What ends up happening is that the local attorney signs pleadings relying upon the outside company, and the pleadings and backup documents look reasonably legit if you aren't assuming crazy conspiracies. If the judge finds out, he/she will refer you to the disciplinary board because will see harm to the courts.
"
Not enough details, but the contract could include an assignment to the "RMC" of any causes of action that arise involving the customer's reputation (as well as the proceeds thereof). I don't know that not authorizing "the" lawsuit or not signing "the pleadings" is necessarily inconsistent with signing a general assignment authorizing the RMC to appoint a lawyer to represent you on your behalf.
May or may not be legal, but I could see the plaintiff's side being plausible. Suing fictitious defendants seems like disbarment time.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.10.10.M}”
"Buy one; get one free." (1992)
"
Yeah that was my recollection, the Bush tax cuts were passed through the reconciliation process with expirations on them to get around the Byrd rule. The Republicans had "no hand," and seemed late to realize it.
"
"No...there is another..."
George Washington for President!
On “Bunch: Blue Apron and the Tensions Within The Liberal Coalition”
Dunno, in my situation, which I will keep purposely vague, an employee of a home repair company (think plumbing, electrical, or handyman) showed up at the customer's home obviously very drunk or high and the customer complained to the employer who fired him/her. From the business's perspective it wasn't directly a liability issue, it was that they get business from referrals, and it was quite unlikely that this customer was going to describe their experience without emphasizing inappropriate conduct. They looked into drug-testing more as a deterrent, in the face of behavior they had not previously imagined.
"
The drug issue is related though. When I was researching acceptable drug-testing policies a few years ago, I read that something like half of employers had drug-testing policies, which was much higher than I had anticipated. There were a number of competing legal policies under my state's laws including support for rehab that made enforcement less than straight-forward. Whatever the merits of the laws and employer-liability concerns (all of which make sense to me in isolation), they made the policies fraught with countervailing preferences.
The short of it is, if you have a drug-testing policy, it would make perfect sense to prefer someone without a prior drug arrest over one that does not. And maybe that's half of all jobs.
"
Or a more recent study:
Link
"
This is the study I believe you are referring to:
Link via Marginal Revolution
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.