Cliven Bundy Syndrome

[rushmc 18]

kallend

*** Administrative law is the body of rules and regulations created by executive agencies and regulatory bodies (such as the EPA, OSHA, FCC, FTC, etc.). Administrative law has legal force only because of enabling statutes passed by the legislature. For instance, the EPA derives its authority to create laws regarding the environment from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and several other acts of Congress.
The significance of administrative law should not be underestimated: In a typical year, Congress passes around 300 laws, while administrative agencies write approximately 10,000 regulations. These laws, when violated, are adjudicated in special administrative courts that are separate from the usual legal system.

You see bureaucrats are enacting laws without the consent of the people and without recourse for the people. Congress is supposed to enact laws not an FCC bureaucrat.

Did you pass civics in school?

Congress passes laws that empower the various agencies to make regulations. Do you REALLY think Congress passed every one of the Federal Aviation Regulations (to give just one example)?

HE has it right
The gov was never intended to work the way it does today
All laws were to be voted on
Now there is no representation because apointed bureacrats just creat rules as they see fit.

So, to answer your question
Yes, he most certianly did

You on the other hand.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,634]

rushmc

****** Administrative law is the body of rules and regulations created by executive agencies and regulatory bodies (such as the EPA, OSHA, FCC, FTC, etc.). Administrative law has legal force only because of enabling statutes passed by the legislature. For instance, the EPA derives its authority to create laws regarding the environment from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and several other acts of Congress.
The significance of administrative law should not be underestimated: In a typical year, Congress passes around 300 laws, while administrative agencies write approximately 10,000 regulations. These laws, when violated, are adjudicated in special administrative courts that are separate from the usual legal system.

You see bureaucrats are enacting laws without the consent of the people and without recourse for the people. Congress is supposed to enact laws not an FCC bureaucrat.

Did you pass civics in school?

Congress passes laws that empower the various agencies to make regulations. Do you REALLY think Congress passed every one of the Federal Aviation Regulations (to give just one example)?

HE has it right
The gov was never intended to work the way it does today
All laws were to be voted on
Now there is no representation because apointed bureacrats just creat rules as they see fit.

So, to answer your question
Yes, he most certianly did

You on the other hand.......

And Congress did vote on the laws that empower federal agencies to make regulations. Congress has the authority to do this.

For example, The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was an act of the United States Congress, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, that created the Federal Aviation Agency (later the Federal Aviation Administration or the FAA). The act empowered the FAA to oversee and regulate safety in the airline industry and the use of American airspace by both military aircraft and civilian aircraft.

You should read the Constitution sometime - you may find it enlightening.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

********* Administrative law is the body of rules and regulations created by executive agencies and regulatory bodies (such as the EPA, OSHA, FCC, FTC, etc.). Administrative law has legal force only because of enabling statutes passed by the legislature. For instance, the EPA derives its authority to create laws regarding the environment from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and several other acts of Congress.
The significance of administrative law should not be underestimated: In a typical year, Congress passes around 300 laws, while administrative agencies write approximately 10,000 regulations. These laws, when violated, are adjudicated in special administrative courts that are separate from the usual legal system.

You see bureaucrats are enacting laws without the consent of the people and without recourse for the people. Congress is supposed to enact laws not an FCC bureaucrat.

Did you pass civics in school?

Congress passes laws that empower the various agencies to make regulations. Do you REALLY think Congress passed every one of the Federal Aviation Regulations (to give just one example)?

HE has it right
The gov was never intended to work the way it does today
All laws were to be voted on
Now there is no representation because apointed bureacrats just creat rules as they see fit.

So, to answer your question
Yes, he most certianly did

You on the other hand.......

And Congress did vote on the laws that empower federal agencies to make regulations. Congress has the authority to do this.

You should read the Constitution sometime - you may find it enlightening.

I have
But unlike you, I understand it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cloud9 0]

Quote

Did you pass civics in school?

Did you read the quote? It says right in it that the agencies get their power to regulate from the act congress passes. My reference is they then go out of control and pass regulations (laws) that we are stuck with. The constitutional intent was not for this to happen. The agencies themselves should have much better oversight (they don't). Then when subpoenaed often refuse to testify or out and out lie with no consequences. Bureaucrats are in fact creating laws (regulations) that the people don't want or think are necessary.

Case in point the U.S. tax code, no one really understands it. It's estimated that Americans spend over 6 billion hours and spend over 140 billion dollars to do their taxes. Most Americans want that fixed. But every year the IRS makes it more and more difficult to file taxes.

Because something is law doesn't make it just or right. After all slavery was legal at one time.

[kallend 1,634]

rushmc

************ Administrative law is the body of rules and regulations created by executive agencies and regulatory bodies (such as the EPA, OSHA, FCC, FTC, etc.). Administrative law has legal force only because of enabling statutes passed by the legislature. For instance, the EPA derives its authority to create laws regarding the environment from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and several other acts of Congress.
The significance of administrative law should not be underestimated: In a typical year, Congress passes around 300 laws, while administrative agencies write approximately 10,000 regulations. These laws, when violated, are adjudicated in special administrative courts that are separate from the usual legal system.

You see bureaucrats are enacting laws without the consent of the people and without recourse for the people. Congress is supposed to enact laws not an FCC bureaucrat.

Did you pass civics in school?

Congress passes laws that empower the various agencies to make regulations. Do you REALLY think Congress passed every one of the Federal Aviation Regulations (to give just one example)?

HE has it right
The gov was never intended to work the way it does today
All laws were to be voted on
Now there is no representation because apointed bureacrats just creat rules as they see fit.

So, to answer your question
Yes, he most certianly did

You on the other hand.......

And Congress did vote on the laws that empower federal agencies to make regulations. Congress has the authority to do this.

You should read the Constitution sometime - you may find it enlightening.

I have
But unlike you, I understand it

So explain carefully why you believe the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, passed by Congress and signed by the President, is unConstitutional.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,634]

cloud9

Quote

Did you pass civics in school?

Did you read the quote? It says right in it that the agencies get their power to regulate from the act congress passes..

Yes I did. And in it you wrote "You see bureaucrats are enacting laws without the consent of the people and without recourse for the people. Congress is supposed to enact laws not an FCC bureaucrat."

Now that is simply untrue. Bureaucrats aren't enacting laws, they are creating regulations as directed by laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. If you passed civics you would know this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cloud9 0]

Quote

If you passed civics you would know this

Man you're really stuck on this civics thingalthough I do enjoy your post civil and educated. However passing something in school does not an expert make.

However yes I did pass Civics (hated it at the time) I do believe that congress passing an act and then giving an agency carte blanche authority to regulate it, is unconstitutional yes. Before you ask yes I have read the constitution many times, our government has expanded it's authority in spite of the limits put on it by the constitution.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

cows were eating grass and the BLM wanted turtles to have it.

Fuck the turtles. Can't trust 'em.

[kallend 1,634]

cloud9

Quote

If you passed civics you would know this

Man you're really stuck on this civics thingalthough I do enjoy your post civil and educated. However passing something in school does not an expert make.

However yes I did pass Civics (hated it at the time) I do believe that congress passing an act and then giving an agency carte blanche authority to regulate it, is unconstitutional yes.

OK, which clause in the Constitution prohibits Congress from doing this?

Do you really think it good use of Congress to have every rule about, for example, the steel used in bolts used to secure airliner seats or the technical specifications of automobile airbags or the allocation of frequencies for garage door openers, and a million other minutiae, to be debated and voted on by Congress? Really?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Instructive (and detailed) treatise on the constitutionality of Congress's Delegation of Legislative Power here:

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/03-delegation-of-legislative-power.html

(Note: the article's text and its citations are interspersed, so you'll have read/scan all the way through to the bottom.)

[cloud9 0]

Wow Andy that’s a lot of info, and a good find.

Kallend as you can see I’m not the lone ranger when it comes to the belief that Congress uses its delegation discretion to excess. You’ve taken things to the extreme when you reference, bolts, technical specifications and such. Of course congress cannot and does not have all of the expertise to write laws regarding such things. Common sense delegation is acceptable; with oversight I can’t stress this enough.

However the oversight is not there and the agencies are running rampant. When the agencies cave to political ideologically or special interest ideas they are way out of line. But this happens all the time, BLM is doing it, the EPA is doing it, the IRS was recently caught doing it, BATF, FBI the list does go on and on.

As for congress having time, well yes they are limited to a degree. From what I see though they spend a lot of time in areas they have no authority and then don’t have the time to do their job. For example what the hell did congress have to do with steroid use in baseball?

In my opinion this is the wrong question

Quote

OK, which clause in the Constitution prohibits Congress from doing this?

The constitution was’nt written as a list of prohibition but was written as what is authorized and anything not written is not authorized. So the proper question would be where in the constitution is this authorized?

[kallend 1,634]

cloud9

Wow Andy that’s a lot of info, and a good find.

Kallend as you can see I’m not the lone ranger when it comes to the belief that Congress uses its delegation discretion to excess.

WELL, since the Supreme Court (and not you) decides what is Constitutional, and the Supreme Court has not upheld a challenge to delegation of authority to an agency by Congress since 1935 when it was having pissing match with FDR over the New Deal (in fact it has consistently rejected such challenges) I think that on balance you are wrong and I am right.

To quote the article: With the exception of a brief period in the 1930’s when the Court was striking down New Deal legislation on a variety of grounds, the Court has consistently upheld grants of authority that have been challenged as invalid delegations of legislative power.

And: Concerns in the scholarly literature with respect to the scope of the delegation doctrine have been reflected in the opinions of some of the Justices. Nonetheless, the Court’s decisions continue to approve very broad delegations, and the practice will likely remain settled.

The fact that the Court has gone so long without holding a statute to be an invalid delegation does not mean that the nondelegation doctrine is a dead letter. The long list of rejected challenges does suggest, however, that the doctrine applies only to standardless delegations of the most sweeping nature.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,129]

rushmc

****** Administrative law is the body of rules and regulations created by executive agencies and regulatory bodies (such as the EPA, OSHA, FCC, FTC, etc.). Administrative law has legal force only because of enabling statutes passed by the legislature. For instance, the EPA derives its authority to create laws regarding the environment from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and several other acts of Congress.
The significance of administrative law should not be underestimated: In a typical year, Congress passes around 300 laws, while administrative agencies write approximately 10,000 regulations. These laws, when violated, are adjudicated in special administrative courts that are separate from the usual legal system.

You see bureaucrats are enacting laws without the consent of the people and without recourse for the people. Congress is supposed to enact laws not an FCC bureaucrat.

Did you pass civics in school?

Congress passes laws that empower the various agencies to make regulations. Do you REALLY think Congress passed every one of the Federal Aviation Regulations (to give just one example)?

HE has it right
The gov was never intended to work the way it does today
All laws were to be voted on
Now there is no representation because apointed bureacrats just creat rules as they see fit.

So, to answer your question
Yes, he most certianly did

You on the other hand.......

So you want congress to vote on all regulations coming forth from any federal agency?

You also want small government?

Or do you simply believe most regulations are useless and should just be discarded and there should be no federal agency overseeing any of it?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Or do you simply believe most regulations are useless and should just be discarded and there should be no federal agency overseeing any of it?

DING DING DING

We have a winner...

Please refer to the 1980 Libertarian platform where the master ran as one of the candidates for that party. They were very specific for the list of agencies who have had the audacity to fine the masters companies for breaking laws across the country. The master wanted and still wants them dismantled. See if the agenda looks familiar to todays TeaPublican platform.

[cloud9 0]

Quote

So you want congress to vote on all regulations coming forth from any federal agency?

This is the second time this has come up. I never said any such thing nor did I imply it. Of course not, what I'm saying is simply that common sense delegation with reasonable oversight is necessary. The problem is that's not what we have period! We have agencies creating regulations (law) based on political ideology and that my friends in unconstitutional.

Yes I want much much smaller government many of the agencies we have are way to big or completely unnecessary.

As for the supreme court, you will find that in all of those cases some of the justices would have ruled as I believe. So I'm not out of line. Also one of our forefathers biggest fears was activist courts (well we have arrived)

[cloud9 0]

Unfortunately Rush people like you and I and there are many will never agree with expanding the government beyond constitutional authority.
Others are ok with it, in fact some would do away with it. Even some supreme court justices believe it is a living changing document (how idiotic is that)

[quade 3]

cloud9

Even some supreme court justices believe it is a living changing document (how idiotic is that)

Because otherwise it would have included a procedure to amend it.

Crazy, right?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cloud9 0]

Quote

Fuck the turtles. Can't trust 'em.

+1

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The constitution was’nt written as a list of prohibition but was written as what is authorized and anything not written is not authorized. So the proper question would be where in the constitution is this authorized?

As you well know, since you passed civics , the body of Constitutional law is comprised of the actual text of the Constitution itself, plus the Supreme Court's (and other federal courts') interpretation of its text. Thus, to the issue of congressional delegation, in the seminal 1819 case McCullogh v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged:

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."

[cloud9 0]

Quote

Because otherwise it would have included a procedure to amend it

This is exactly what I meant, it must be amended to make a change. But some of our justices don't see it that way.

[cloud9 0]

I have conceded some delegation, even expressing that congress cannot possibly have the expertise to write everything. However I also expressed that agencies are acting with political ideology and that is unconstitutional. They are also acting without proper oversight and again that is unconstitutional.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

However I also expressed that agencies are acting with political ideology and that is unconstitutional.

I don't think it's necessarily unconstitutional. I'm unaware of any ruling that effectively prohibits the influence of political ideology as a policy motivator in instances of congressional delegation of authority. Simply, as Justice Marshall puts it, that "the ends be legitimate". They're not by definition mutually exclusive.

Quote

They are also acting without proper oversight and again that is unconstitutional.

I don't see how. I don't believe the Constitution's text micro-manages the means or degree to which Congress exercises its oversight functions. It's pretty much discretionary.

[cloud9 0]

according to our supreme court the agencies should not enact regulations (legislation) that congress would not itself enact. With out oversight it is done all the time, therefore unconstitutional.

As for political ideology look at the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups. The left sees little problem with that the right of course is outraged. The left has done little to assist in the investigation of the IRS. That is why pure political ideology is and should be unconstitutional. This should apply both right and left.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

However the oversight is not there and the agencies are running rampant.

Do you have specific examples of "agencies running rampant"? You mention "turtles" vs ranchers, but in that case the BLM is following the Endangered Species Act. They did not just "suddenly" decide to get rid of cattle ranching, they were instructed by Congress to include endangered species in the mix of things they need to balance as they manage public lands.

Also you have spoken several times of "returning" BLM land to the States. "Returning" suggests that land was taken from the state in the first place. In fact, much Western land, including all of present-day Utah, Nevada, and California, most of Arizona, and about half of New Mexico was purchased from Mexico by the Federal Government in the Mexican Cession of 1848. It was never State land, and it cannot be "returned" to the States. Perhaps control of some or all of it could be given to the States, though that land was originally purchased using taxes collected from citizens of the Eastern States so the land could be used to benefit the whole country.

Do you have any real issues with Federal agencies, apart from not being allowed to base jump in most National Parks?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Andy9o8 0]

cloud9

according to our supreme court the agencies should not enact regulations (legislation) that congress would not itself enact. With out oversight it is done all the time, therefore unconstitutional.

This is a fine point, but you'll never get a federal court to buy an argument that a congressional failure to exercise adequate oversight (over an agency's actions) is in itself unconstitutional. At best, you'd have to argue that the agency action should be nullified because Congress would never have approved of the action. But that would also likely fail because, among other things, congressional agency-enabling legislation tends to be so broad. But that's a statutory argument, not a constitutional one.

Quote

As for political ideology look at the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups. The left sees little problem with that the right of course is outraged. The left has done little to assist in the investigation of the IRS. That is why pure political ideology is and should be unconstitutional. This should apply both right and left.

Again, pure political ideology as a motivator for agency policy is not unconstitutional, as long as the agency can make a showing that the end is legitimate, and that's a very low bar that's easily got over.