I started outlining Administrative Law, and ended up with a few questions. I emailed the professor to see when his office hours where. He said, “Oh come any time. I’m here all of the time.” I go see him after class, and he is blaring music through his Ipod and playing a game on the computer. I knock loudly, several times. He finally jumps when he hears me.
(He is from Israel, so you have to imagine this conversation with an accent).
Professor: “Oh, Googie. I have so much to do. I have this paper to get out and I have to write this test.”
Me: “That’s fine. I really just wanted to know what test we should use to decide if something is an interpretative rule?”
Prof: “Interpretative rules? Oh. I can barely remember that. Hey, have a seat. Did you see that Apple is having a sale? Not that I need another Ipod.”
Ok. Experiment with taking Administrative Law seriously is over.
Ha! Awesome. Mine is far too cerebral and a freshly-minted one, too. I rather preferred it when he was distracted by the Phillies being in the World Series. Anyway, check out this chart. (Crap. It wouldn’t paste in here like I wanted it to. Email me if you want it.)
Have you checked out the E&E? I think it has a good explanation of this, too.
your prof sounds hilarious! I’m taking admin next sem- I hope it’s not as awful as people say.
I hated Admin. And then I went on to practice it. Crazy. An interpretive rule is just a rule that states what the administrative agency thinks a statute means and reminds affected parties of existing duties, while a substantive rule imposes new rights or duties.
(This time it’s Meg commenting)
I never took it. But, having heard tales while I was in law school, I knew I would hate it. I told Mo this. She took it anyway. That said, I loved Secured Transactions but wouldn’t wish it on Mo.
Hi Meg, I wish someone had told me how bad it is. But since I am interested in public interest, everyone told me I HAD to take it. I’m still not sure what was so important.