A law is very different from a regulation. All government agencies have regulations that help them carry out their responsibilities (for better or for worse). Can you think of an agency that doesn't make regulations and also enforce consequences for those who violate them? The US Coast Guard has been given the responsibility of protecting the Navy ships in US navigable waters, and they created some regulations to get the job done. I have no problem with that.
“These Naval Vessel Protection Zones (NVPZ) help protect our Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and Marines fighting the war on terrorism by effectively creating a no-float zone around U.S. Navy ships,” said Vice Adm. James D. Hull, Atlantic Area Commander. “Nothing the Coast Guard does now in the war on terrorism is more important than protecting our Navy ships and safeguarding our ports.”
The new Naval Vessel Protection Zone, along with dozens of security zones placed around power plants, marine facilities, cruise ships and hazardous cargo vessels across the nation, are designed to reduce vulnerabilities and increase security as part of the Coast Guard’s largest port security operation since WWII.
How can this be a problem for you?
Meanwhile my concern about mistaken priorities remains: What about those container ships?
What would you like the USCG to do? Board every one of them and open every container? Or maybe you are suggesting they write up some new regulations?
Please explain the operant Constitutional distinction without running afoul of the Separation of Powers Principle.
All government agencies have regulations that help them carry out their responsibilities (for better or for worse).
Only because Congress defaulted upon its Constitutional responsibility via a series of delegations of their legislative responsibility and the courts have abetted it in their interest as well. Further, many of those so-called "responsibilities" are also unconstitutional infringements by the Federal government, particularly property rights.
Can you think of an agency that doesn't make regulations and also enforce consequences for those who violate them?
No. That doesn't make the practice Constitutional, instead it is a WILD stretch of the Commerce Clause. I also can't think of an agency that doesn't make rules in its own interest as alienated from those of citizens.
I wrote a book proposing a system of free-market regulation because few of those delegated "responsibilities" were function in accordance with the limited powers granted the national government under the Constitution. Nearly all civic regulation is a democratic taking of the use of private property and is a temptation to corruption. They have enormous unintended consequences. Consider the EPA. Increasingly, EPA regulations reflect the profit interests of campaign contributors, particularly real estate.
BTW, nearly all Federal ownership of land violates Article 1, Section 8. Perhaps you should read the document.
The US Coast Guard has been given the responsibility of protecting the Navy ships in US navigable waters, and they created some regulations to get the job done. I have no problem with that.
No doubt. The police never have a problem drafting, writing, interpreting, administering, and enforcing laws that serve their interests. It is still a violation of the Constitution.