First off - I speak only to the laws of WA, as that is where I am educated. Laws in any other state may be different.
Does the legislature in WA directly adopt the building code or does it delegate that task to a state agency?
The State Legislature has delegated the SBCC (State Building Code Council) to draft amendments and review, but the State Legislature has the final vote to adopt.
What you must also consider is the Administrative Code. In WA, we have the RCW (the laws) and the WAC (administrative code). The WAC lays out the groundwork for intent and legal authority, and basically tells you how to apply the RCW.
I agree that I cannot regulate the practice of engineering. I can require engineering where not prescriptive per the I-Codes. If someone other than a licensed engineer completes the engineering, I am instructed via the WAC to report them to the State Department of Licensing. Thus, I do not have the ability to regulate, just a responsibility to require engineering be done by a licensed party. (Not so much different than requiring a contractors license)
I repeat my suggestion, if you disagree then I suggest you send a letter to your state agency that regulates the practice of engineering stating that you will be regulating the practice of engineering.
Your above quote is ridiculous. Why would I do that? We are not regulating the practice, we are merely verifying that those practicing engineering are licensed to do such. Failure to be licensed will place the permit on hold, and the drawings can be forwarded to the State Dept. of Licensing. They can then review and persecute for practicing without a license.
Model codes are not a legal requirement and the author (ICC) can put in it whatever they want.
In WA, after the state amends, they are adopted in full text as law. They are thereby legal requirements. As example, see
RCW 19.27.031 and
WAC 51-50.
The state agency or a local jurisdiction then adopts the model code but does not review it to verify that there are no conflicts with existing state laws.
In WA, they do. The SBCC amends, then the State Legislature reviews for conflict and vets the legality.
I hope we recognize that in this scenario that there are limits on what can be in the building code. So let us do a test, have ICC insert a provision in the IBC exempting building officials from having to pay state income taxes or file tax returns, which should be popular among the membership of ICC. Inevitably some state agency will adopt the IBC without removing this provision. Then the building officials will not file state tax returns. Will your argument protect you when you are accused of not filing your tax return or will we find building officials going to jail?
While this is a preposterous suggestion, I get your intent. In this proposition, the Building Official would be protected and technically ok, because they could directly point to a section of code, which is law, and show that they have complied. The State Legislature would be surely embarrassed as they would have been found in dereliction of their duties in allowing such an amendment. After all, it is the State Legislature who is responsible to vet the SBCC's proposed code for legality.