Andy9o8

A student on S/L or IAD progression, assuming he made all his dummy pulls ok, would probably make his first freefall - a hop & pop - at around jump #6. At jump #10, he's probably still concentrating on just falling flat & stable, so he might not have been taught about tracking yet. OTOH, if he was an AFF grad, then yeah, it's hard to fathom he'd be cleared to self-supervise w/o having been taught and demonstrated basic tracking form.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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."

So, based on this, I am pretty sure he is saying he did not rip the guy off and there is no outstanding warrant against him. Maybe I read it wrong ....... That's my interpretation, too. And I'm the first one to champion "innocent until proven guilty". But he did come here and speak, even if he was provoked. So I think he would benefit himself if he provided just a wee bit more detail about his side of the story than simply the accuser is "full of shit". But, you know, that's his choice...

Actually, he's recently progressed to freefall.

Not all of them: In some necks of the woods, that would double the teen birthrate.

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.)

Fuck the turtles. Can't trust 'em.

http://weather.aol.com/2014/05/13/gust-or-freak-dust-devil-throws-bounce-house-in-air-injures-three-kids-in-ny/?ncid=webmail4

Well, there you go: practically a license to steal.

You need to go back to Analogy School. It is, after all, a higher art form.

I agree, for the reason you state. I tend to be hyper-sensitive to unfairness, and it's always offended my sense of what's right when certain families hog-up the available offices and/or judgeships. I know it happens all the time, and everywhere, but I view it as selfish gluttony, and it bothers me.

That's probably the fastest way to get them canned, provided they check their email/PMs often. I and I'm sure others have floated the idea of a 'report' button, but while it doesn't sound too hard on paper (at least for me looking at it), I believe there was worry it would end up getting abused. The irony being that the abuse flag button would be getting abused. I'd say a report-abuse button would be ok as long as it's not in Speaker's Corner, where... well, let's face it: abuse is a requirement of admission. Bad enough that Incidents is already sanitized to the point of silliness; if they did that to Speaker's Corner, too, I'd just put my head down and cry.

You am phony baloney. Is Crimea gives Sudetenland. Avoid polonium - if can. Do svidanya.

Possibly (possibly!) yes... but I'm not a tax attorney, so I'm not sure w/o researching it out. From what I generally understand, the IRS almost always takes the position that the answer is Yes. One should really consult an attorney who specializes in US taxation to get a reliable answer about a specific scenario. Here's what the IRS says about it: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/U.S.-Citizens-and-Resident-Aliens-Abroad Also see these articles: Time to debunk the myth of the tax-free expat American Tax Hustle For U.S. Citizens Abroad Americans abroad find citizenship too taxing to keep The third article mentions ex-pat US citizens who relinquish their US passports seeking to avoid US income tax on their foreign-earned (and foreign-taxed!) income. A word of caution: If you're going this route, do it the right way. Consult a US tax attorney on what is sufficient "renunciation" to avoid US tax liability. The US has very specific requirements as to what kind of relinquishment of passports and/or citizenship is needed to accomplish this; and if you don't do it exactly the way US law and regulations say it must be done, the IRS (and maybe the US courts) will still deem you liable for US income tax.

Glad to hear it. Nor, presumably, did the drivers have bad experiences with you. You're a clean-cut guy, who I suppose is at least well-enough looking to attract Vskydiver, who looks friendly and harmless. That's probably because you're friendly and harmless. But FWIW, you do sorta-kinda vaguely look like Ted Bundy when he was in his clean cut mode. And with all due respect, if one of my daughters picked you up hitching, I'd be really, really, really upset. But guns are The Great Equalizer, John. And if any of you guys in good shape with some personal skills picks up some harmless-looking/acting soul who suddenly whips out a gun while you're behind the wheel, your size, shape, speed and skills might not be enough to adequately counter the threat before you're gravely harmed.

That's really 2 questions: (1) bona fide citizenship, and (2) subject to US law. A person born in the US remains a bona fide US citizen for life, notwithstanding any possible dual citizenships, unless he expressly renounces his US citizenship in a manner recognized by US law as a valid renunciation (which becomes an issue in, for example, tax scenarios). If your question is whether such a person is liable for US income tax (it often comes up in cases of US citizen ex-pats who have moved long-term to other countries), that's a complex question that is very individually fact-specific, and thus is not subject to a general answer. FWIW- generally speaking, all people, regardless of citizenship, physically on US soil are subject to virtually all US laws. I imagine you have a specific scenario in mind. A general question cannot always be answered. If you can present a specific (actual or hypothetical) factual scenario, it may be easier to answer your inquiry.

Unbelievable. He meant Midwest. Death to Hoosiers!

They taste like chicken.

This is an honest contest. No fudging.

Have you met theforkguy? I think you and he could become buds.

So you believe there's been risk homeostasis. Perhaps you're right. But that has little to do with the implication that the most modern generation of AADs have an appreciable risk of either killing you on a higher performance landing, or are likely to dump a reserve into another jumper's face in freefall, like the old Sentinels of the 1970s. And that's really most of what I was getting at with my last post.

Interesting that he got picked by St. Louis. The central Midwest is quite accepting of alternative lifestyles. Contest: Insert juvenile double entendre here: _________ using the word "Rams". Prize awarded for best, um, entry.]