cloud9

We are just rehashing the same thing over and over so I guess I'm done for awhile. I will leave you all with this though. For all of the liberal skydivers there will come a day you regret being liberal. The people you put in office will find a way to regulate you off of the airports. Either with taxes or fees but it will come to pass it you keep them in office.

So with all the brilliant minds in government, we need an oil refinery worker to solve this problem? Ok arm the pilots and put armed agents on the plane. Use explosive sniffing dogs. Look at the land around yellowstone park. It's absolutely beautiful with no real issues. It is regulated for things like hunting and fishing just like everywhere else. But not regulated anything like yellowstone is and it's free to roam around.

No Don but liberals have been trying for years to trivialize conservatives. Just remember at one time it was the law and upheld by the supreme court that. Slavery was legal. Women did not have a right to vote. Women only had limited property rights. Women were only allowed to be educated in public schools if there was room after all the boys attended. Blacks were not citizens. Indians were not considered Americans. Horse thieves were hung If not for people like me that challenged the status quo and recognized that just because it is law doesn't make it right. Who knows where we would be today.

Don you can make excuses for everything but sorry it still doesn't make it right. As for ignorance of history you seem to be very selective with it. What about the oklahoma land rush, you know the sooner state. Also the homestead act of 1862? There were many other homestead acts passed as well. The intent was for the people to own the land not the federal government. The government used to own most of Nebraska but Nebraska got their land back. So did many other mid-western states. The west seems to be treated differently though as the feds still own big pieces of Utah, Nevada, California and Co. and other states. The TSA are a bunch of idiots, they have yet to stop a single act of terror. Oh but there have been numerous cases where people have accidently brought weapons on planes and what about the stowaways. The whole TSA thing is smoke and mirrors and has not nor will it ever protect us from terrorist. The IRS was not legally targeting conservatives, in many cases they brought the weight of the entire government down on people. OSHA, IRS auditing, BATF auditing this is a big deal but again liberals don't really care because it was on conservative groups. What would the National parks look like if not over regulated? Probably a lot like the thousands of acres of land owned by the many states that are doing just fine thank you. I don't object to people paying to lease federal or state land to make a profit . However the government has so much land they can't possibly manage it. To charge the people to access the peoples land is just plain wrong. To keep the people out of the peoples land because of some so called form of endangered species is equally wrong.The government needs to shutdown all of the unconstitutional programs they're vested in and they would have more then enough money to run the country. This is like trying to write a program for a commodore 64

I agree with almost everything you said Wendy. However as a federal employee Lerner should be required to answer all questions in relation to her job. If she chooses not to then she should be fired and given no compensation from the government. I do believe she was acting on orders from above and she should say so. I work for an oil company and that is how we are treated. As for her constitutional right to plead the 5th she lost that when she gave a statement about how innocent she was and then chose to plead the 5th. That's a no no you don't get to tell one side and then take the 5th, she waived her right. We should all have equal protection under the law.

Sorry Quade but you and I are just going to have to disagree on the IRS issue. Lois Lerner didn't take the 5th because she did everything on the up and up. She lied, she targeted conservatives illegally and the administration has withheld documents. Of course as I already said liberals are applauding the IRS look at the hate and I do mean hate for the tea party.

Too funny Don I don't nor have I ever nor do I care about base jumping. It was an example people on here might actually relate too. However yes I have many instances, drop zones have been thrown off airports. We the people pay for our federal parks through taxes to charge us to use our own land is ridiculous. The reason we are charged is because our government does such a poor job as stewards of our tax dollars. The TSA screeners have gone wild, harassing children, and handicapped people in the name of our safety. You might say well you don't have to fly and that's true. However if you go to the airport unaware of what they are going to do such a s a physical search of your person. Then you decide you don't want to be touched by a stranger or you don't want your child frisked. You cannot just walk away, even if you decide not to get on the plane. At that time you have lost your constitutional rights and will be arrested if you try to leave. They can also hold you in an aircraft for hours on a runway or taxiway in an aircraft. If you try to leave you will be arrested. If anyone else held you like that they would be charged with false imprisonment. Environmental regulations have been used by the left for years now. If an oil company kills birds it get fines. If they are killed by windmills or solar panels well thats ok. If you take a pine cone in Yosemite park it's a crime. If you have a metal detector its a crime. The IRS was targeting conservative groups. BLM has recently claimed land in Texas that was bought and paid for by a private citizen and had taxes paid on it for years. They are now talking about claiming a bunch more land in Texas. Federal law enforcement agencies are acquiring military weapons to use against it's citizens. The DOJ has decided laws passed by congress don't matter. They have decided not to enforce some of the immigration act, they have decided to let drug dealers go that were convicted and sentenced according to law. I mean this is an endless list. As for the states getting what should be their land look at my earlier link, I'm not going to get to redundant with my post.

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.

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.

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.

+1

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)

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)

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 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?

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.

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.

This was never about Bundy it's about the overreach of the government bureaucrats. We had the BLM telling citizens they couldn't use the peoples land. We had cows grazing on land COWS the BLM came in with 200 armed officers started pushing people around and flexing the might of the government. Because cows were eating grass and the BLM wanted turtles to have it. The government pays farmers to plow under wheat, they pay corn farmers to grow corn for our gas tanks, they pay peanut farmers not to plant peanuts. Then they show up guns up because cows are eating grass in Nevada. The government paid a price for this idiocy and will continue to pay a price if they don't wise up. Give the land back to Nevada and leave the people alone.

On the surface this seems fair enough but look at the whole picture. Over 53 ranchers used this land for over 100 years. It was land no one else wanted, these ranchers carved a living out of this as well as their own land. Then they were given permits and charged, then the permits were slowly taken away. Limiting the amount of cattle they could have on the land. So they were in effect put out of business so the land could be turned over to the desert tortoise. This wasn't done by a vote of the people but by BLM bureaucrats that decided that's what they wanted to do. There in lies the problem, it's now a law. No agency is supposed to have that kind of power nor should they.

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.

Going back to Bundy my beliefs and the beliefs of many are fairly simple. The government allowed free grazing or free range for over 100 years. Then they out of nowhere started charging to graze cattle. Keeping in mind this is desert land useless for much else. Then some special interest groups decided that the poor little desert tortoise shouldn't have to graze with cows and the feds demanded protection for the poor little tortoise. Nothing about this law has anything to do with protecting people from anything.

This was an insult, you are an intelligent person so I believe it was intended to be. Of course stop signs are there to help prevent accidents. However most laws are not criminal laws and even most criminal laws are not there to protect you. Yes there are certainly laws that are designed to do that but not most. I was a law enforcement officer for 11 years and believe that many criminal laws are there to protect the citizens and are necessary, I'm certainly not against all laws.

Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that's the part written by the IRS) is 20 volumes and over 13,000 pages. Do you think that was written to keep people from hurting each other? Oh when you add what congress wrote in Title 26 it's over 16,000 pages.

In you won't interact in earnest this is truly futile

I could easily prove my point but at this time you are so closed minded that it probably wouldn't make a difference. But I'll give an example anyway. There are over 3000 federal criminal laws that encompass over 50 titles and over 23,000 pages. Think about that, you are expected to obey everyone of them and ignorance is not a valid excuse. The very topic of this thread why did they after 100 years of free grazing decide that people should start paying?

Criminal or Civil? Overall most laws are written to appease a special interest group or to gain revenue for our different levels of government.