Asimow, note 1, at 366 Pierce, 25, § 6.8 at 369. For a discussion of the relevant statutes of limitations, see note 18.
As noted in subsection 4.2.1, although the Act may prescribe limits on to whom and how an IP owner may license, transfer, or sell their IP, it does not challenge the fundamental right to do so. The Bureau is of the view that, in general, IP holders arranging their affairs so as to more effectively enforce their IP rights do not raise issues under the Act. This may include engaging the services of firms that specialize in the enforcement of IP rights.
Although taxpayers may not “vote out of office” bureaucrats who fail to properly consider their comments, they may nonetheless indirectly condition IRS behavior through appeals to representatives in the executive and legislative branches. Taxpayers can exert electoral pressure on the political officials who delegated authority to the IRS in the first place. These politicians, in turn, may exercise Congressional or executive oversight over the IRS to resolve policy disputes. This relationship imposes on
Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) (holding a sheriff could lawfully remove protesters from a county jail, because the property was closed to the public and the removal of the protesters served a security purpose). CRS Report 98-670, , by [author name scrubbed].
In the , laws are frowned upon, but are permitted by virtue of the of . Historically, all acts of Parliament before 1793 were legislation, inasmuch as their date of effect was the first day of the session in which they were passed. This situation was rectified by the .