Consider just one rabbit trail of fine print in the first section of Title VIII, "Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies".
From what I can discern, the education investments in the stimulus bill are scattered in several places, so the Department of Education section of Title VIII is far from definitive.
Also, as the 2015 order points out, very few sections of Title II are actually being applied.
The bill would put the language above into all of the sections of Title 10 regarding chaplains, making it applicable to all branches of the military as well as the service academies.
Here's what it's about, according to the hardworking folks at EFF: Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230).
(B) The secretary of defense may perform any of his functions or duties, and may exercise any of the powers provided to him under this order (other than under section 4(c)(8) hereof) in accordance with section 113 d) of title 10, United States Code.
By doing so, it acted inconsistently with Article II of the Constitution and inconsistently with Section 5 of Title III, and it has brought about precisely the circumstances that Section 5 of Article, of Section III, Title III. was designed to avoid.
Since 1992, only a dozen cases involving this part of the United States Code, Section 1752 of Title 18, have been referred to federal prosecutors by the Secret Service and other government agencies, according to TRACfed, a database of federal enforcement information at Syracuse University.
Section 602 of Title VI requires "each federal department and agency" affected by the law to issue regulations "which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute".
While that statute doesn't cover Rodriguez's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, experts point to Section 1621 of Title 18, which prohibits lying to Congress while under oath and Section 1001 covering testimony given while not under oath, as the operative portions of the U.S. Code.
The federal question arises out of the fact that the Florida Supreme Court was violating Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and it was conducting itself in violation of Section 5 of Title III of federal law.
