Biden’s new tribal consent laws force NYC Museum of Natural History to close Native American exhibits
This story has been listed in notables a couple of times recently. I am not quibbling with that. My interest is in the headline itself. Specifically "Biden’s new tribal consent laws". Further down in the story we find:
>Over the years, however, critics called out the legislation for including too many possible loopholes for institutions while placing unfair requirements on native tribes, a Cato Institute review explained.
>As a result, the Biden administration has pushed to speed up the repatriation process — which gave way to the revised regulations that were finalized in December, the Department of the Interior announced at the time.
>The new regulations approved last month aim to alleviate some of that strife — including a stipulation for “required free, prior and informed consent before any exhibition of, access to, or research on human remains or cultural items.”
So it is not a law which is in effect here but a regulation.
see: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/whats-the-difference-between-laws-and-regulations/
So what this headline is doing is conflating "regulation" and "law", i.e. programming the populace to consider them one and the same. Actually more reinforcing that view since most people already consider them the same as the sited findlaw article points out.
Why this caught my attention is because of the fact that SCOTUS recently agreed to hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce
see: https://jonathanturley.org/2024/01/17/214310/comment-page-2/
Which could result in the Chevron doctrine being overturned. For those that don't know the Chevron doctrine is the the SCOTUS finding which essentially places regulations on an even footing with laws, and thereby creates the deep/administrative state.