Re: Mr. Macdonald your "support your position using solely the IRCargument"is done.

Dale Eastman wrote:

> Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
>
> > Dale Eastman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Richard Macdonald wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>So show where the Secretary is allowed to exceed this mandate from Congress.
> >>
> >>Not my problem. As I just showed you, jeopardy only attaches for failure
> >>to follow the "rules" not the statutes. Now, Mr. Macdonald, read the
> >>rules, or pay up like Malloy says.
> >
> >
> > Ping.  Error 404 (argument not found).
>
> ...the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of
> the regulation promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do
> nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone...

You missed the preceding sentence.  Let me provide context.

Under the Act, the Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized to prescribe by regulation certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for banks
and other financial institutions in this country. Because
it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues
raised by the parties, we think it important to note that
the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon
violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary;
if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself
would impose no penalties on anyone.

In other words -- THIS PARTICULAR ACT is not self-executing,
so that only issued regulations (consistent with the law) are to
be considered for constitutional violations.  However, some laws
CAN BE unconstitutional on their face -- the Communications
Decency Act comes to mind.