Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

substantive rule

Read a random definition: collateralize

A quick definition of substantive rule:

A substantive rule is a type of administrative rule created by an agency with the authority to make laws. This type of rule has the same legal force as a law and is also known as a legislative rule. It is different from an interpretative rule, which only explains how an existing law should be interpreted. Legislators are the people who make laws within a specific area, and they are also known as lawmakers.

A more thorough explanation:

A substantive rule is a type of administrative rule created by an agency's exercise of delegated quasi-legislative authority. This means that the agency has the power to create rules that have the force of law.

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may create a substantive rule that sets limits on the amount of pollution that a factory can emit into the air or water. This rule would have the force of law and would be enforceable by the EPA.

Another example of a substantive rule is the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) net neutrality rule. This rule requires internet service providers to treat all internet traffic equally, without giving preferential treatment to certain websites or services. This rule has the force of law and is enforceable by the FCC.

Overall, substantive rules are important because they allow agencies to create regulations that have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. This helps ensure that important issues, such as environmental protection and internet access, are regulated in a consistent and fair manner.

substantive right | substantive unconscionability

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.