it is not a question about law or legal process.
is incorrect as to the interpretation of the administrative regulations cited at the question itself
The constitutionality of an ambiguous statute or administrative regulation is a question of law.
which is supported by an abundance of case law, for example Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court,
Page 467 U. S. 843
as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. [Footnote 9] If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, [Footnote 10] as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. [Footnote 11]
Can those users whom voted to close the question as "off-topic" kindly explain their reasoning as to exactly how the question
does not appear to be about law
else, in the absence of a legal rationale for their vote, undo their vote to close the question.