Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
danielost

regulations are illegal laws.

45 posts in this topic

Regulations are laws that do not go through the congress or the president. According go the constitution all laws must go through the congress and signed by the president. Current regulations are designed to keep business start ups. This is true at the local, state, and national levels.

I say stop jnforcing All regulations that Haven't gone through the proper channels. If congress gets the hands full of these little laws, maybe they won't hurt the country as quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

What regulations? Can you name one for us to discuss?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Law is the defining Top Level Act that defines punishment. The Regulations tell you how to comply with the law so that you do not become liable.

Simple.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Law is the defining Top Level Act that defines punishment. The Regulations tell you how to comply with the law so that you do not become liable.

Simple.

Well there is another definition of law, which is the basic law from which all other laws derive, called constitution. But basically you defined it correctly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Law is the defining Top Level Act that defines punishment. The Regulations tell you how to comply with the law so that you do not become liable.

Simple.

Is a executive order considered a regulation? 0bama just banned all AK 47 sales from Russia, in a totaly illegal move to implement gun control, completly by passing due process. I think thats a good example of what DL is talking about. Agencies like child protective service, or the EPA pass all kinds of regulations with no due process as well. Many peoples lives are ruined through regulations enforced by these agencies with no actual law passed. Ive heard of people having their children taken forever simply cause the child protective service agent didnt like they way they were spoken to by parents. Often these agencies have judges in their back pockets and will do what ever is asked. Ive even heard of child protective service completly ignoring orders from judges to return children. Acting totaly outside the rule of law, and get away with it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a executive order considered a regulation? 0bama just banned all AK 47 sales from Russia, in a totaly illegal move to implement gun control, completly by passing due process. I think thats a good example of what DL is talking about. Agencies like child protective service, or the EPA pass all kinds of regulations with no due process as well. Many peoples lives are ruined through regulations enforced by these agencies with no actual law passed. Ive heard of people having their children taken forever simply cause the child protective service agent didnt like they way they were spoken to by parents. Often these agencies have judges in their back pockets and will do what ever is asked. Ive even heard of child protective service completly ignoring orders from judges to return children. Acting totaly outside the rule of law, and get away with it.

While it's true that many regulations are onerus and result in bad situations, the fact is, broad power to create regulations is mandated by the laws that create the regulatory agency. In your example of the EPA, this is the case.

The DCS example you use is not the result of any regulation, unless the offended agent actually observed violations of law that reach the threshold created for taking away children.

Otherwise, it's an illegal act.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The epa uses regulations that it has passed to steal land from farmers. Claiming said land is on an ancient we land. Even tho it is the DND of a drainage pipe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is a executive order considered a regulation? 0bama just banned all AK 47 sales from Russia, in a totaly illegal move to implement gun control, completly by passing due process. I think thats a good example of what DL is talking about. Agencies like child protective service, or the EPA pass all kinds of regulations with no due process as well. Many peoples lives are ruined through regulations enforced by these agencies with no actual law passed. Ive heard of people having their children taken forever simply cause the child protective service agent didnt like they way they were spoken to by parents. Often these agencies have judges in their back pockets and will do what ever is asked. Ive even heard of child protective service completly ignoring orders from judges to return children. Acting totaly outside the rule of law, and get away with it.

Right? Who do the EPA and Child Protective Services think they are? Telling me that I have to have heat in my house, food in my refrigerator and clothes on my kids back? What do you mean I can't dump my used motor oil in my yard? It's my yard! Those people have lost their minds. :tu:

You can't get a cigar from Cuba, and you are crying about AK-47's from Russia?

Edited by Agent0range
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's true that many regulations are onerus and result in bad situations, the fact is, broad power to create regulations is mandated by the laws that create the regulatory agency. In your example of the EPA, this is the case.

The DCS example you use is not the result of any regulation, unless the offended agent actually observed violations of law that reach the threshold created for taking away children.

Otherwise, it's an illegal act.

Harte

Is that not unconstitutional though? Does it not promise due process of law in every area where government enforces? How can that happen when a agency can create laws not passed by elected officials? I dont see anywhere in the constitution where the government can grant a agency permission to pass law unrepresented. Calling it a regulation, instead of a law, makes it no less binding. Thats practically like a mini dictatorship. If thats the case, then constitutionaly regulations not passed by elected servents should have no power over people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right? Who do the EPA and Child Protective Services think they are? Telling me that I have to have heat in my house, food in my refrigerator and clothes on my kids back? What do you mean I can't dump my used motor oil in my yard? It's my yard! Those people have lost their minds. :tu:

You can't get a cigar from Cuba, and you are crying about AK-47's from Russia?

Yeah, cause thats what I was trying to say. :rolleyes: Its down right scary what some folks convince themselfs of.

Did one man "with a pen" decide for us all that we cant get cuban cigars? Declaring the power to do so through national emergency powers? Thats the difference here. Talk about missing the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulations are laws that do not go through the congress or the president. According go the constitution all laws must go through the congress and signed by the president. Current regulations are designed to keep business start ups. This is true at the local, state, and national levels.

I say stop jnforcing All regulations that Haven't gone through the proper channels. If congress gets the hands full of these little laws, maybe they won't hurt the country as quickly.

Since this is an international forum, and not everyone may be well acquainted with the U.S. constitution.... Could you cite the part of the constitution you are referring to please?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that not unconstitutional though? Does it not promise due process of law in every area where government enforces? How can that happen when a agency can create laws not passed by elected officials? I dont see anywhere in the constitution where the government can grant a agency permission to pass law unrepresented. Calling it a regulation, instead of a law, makes it no less binding. Thats practically like a mini dictatorship. If thats the case, then constitutionaly regulations not passed by elected servents should have no power over people.

Congress is empowered by the Constitution to pass legislation.

Congress need not pass by legislation such things as how many ppm of carbon can come out of a smokestack, although they could if they wanted to.

Such regulation is delegated to the regulatory agemncy by the legislation that created it.

The Constitution doesn't say that every minute detail of any Federal rule has to be passed by legislation. The Constitution grants Congress leeway in that sort of situation.

This is because Congress is elected, and can be unelected. Also, because Congress can act, if a regulation imposed doesn't suit them.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress is empowered by the Constitution to pass legislation.

Congress need not pass by legislation such things as how many ppm of carbon can come out of a smokestack, although they could if they wanted to.

Such regulation is delegated to the regulatory agemncy by the legislation that created it.

The Constitution doesn't say that every minute detail of any Federal rule has to be passed by legislation. The Constitution grants Congress leeway in that sort of situation.

This is because Congress is elected, and can be unelected. Also, because Congress can act, if a regulation imposed doesn't suit them.

Harte

Actually it does. I dont see anywhere in the constitution where it gives congress the power to give its power away to a unelected agency. Its why many feel that giving the federal reserve the power to print money is unconstitutional. By a litteral reading of said document, they are correct in saying so. Nor do I see where it gives congress or any other part of government the power to enforce anything, however minute, without passing legislation. Due process, rule of law. Know ye not these things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it does. I dont see anywhere in the constitution where it gives congress the power to give its power away to a unelected agency. Its why many feel that giving the federal reserve the power to print money is unconstitutional. By a litteral reading of said document, they are correct in saying so. Nor do I see where it gives congress or any other part of government the power to enforce anything, however minute, without passing legislation. Due process, rule of law. Know ye not these things?

So according to you Congress has to come in person and enforce the laws?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So according to you Congress has to come in person and enforce the laws?

Please do tell. How exactly, from reading my post, did you come up with that?

edit to add- Im not saying agencies involved in enforcement are unconstitutional. Im saying agencies who enforce their own legislation, NOT passed by congress, are unconstitutional. Though I suspect you already knew that.

Edited by preacherman76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a executive order considered a regulation? 0bama just banned all AK 47 sales from Russia, in a totaly illegal move to implement gun control, completly by passing due process.

You're purposefully mischaracterizing the executive order in question. Perhaps not your fault, given the overblown baloney all over the web about this.

The President is authorized in this area because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's an attempt to hurt the Russians for doing this.

The same (annex to) the EO bans oil importation too. Does this mean Obama is trying to cut off oir oil as well?

You can still buy and sell Russian Kalashnikov products here, you just can't import new ones from Russia. Also, Ak47's are manufactured in China, Romania, Yugoslavia, etc. so you can get a new one anytime, just not from Russia.

This will not limit firearms in even the slightest way, even if it becomes permanent.

Harte

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do tell. How exactly, from reading my post, did you come up with that?

edit to add- Im not saying agencies involved in enforcement are unconstitutional. Im saying agencies who enforce their own legislation, NOT passed by congress, are unconstitutional. Though I suspect you already knew that.

When Congress seez you should make roads safer to the Transport Department and no other specification the Transport department can pass any regulation it deems necessary to do that.

And the examples you put up there are exactly that: Congress being vague leaving it up to the executive to come up with a way to enforce the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it does. I dont see anywhere in the constitution where it gives congress the power to give its power away to a unelected agency. Its why many feel that giving the federal reserve the power to print money is unconstitutional. By a litteral reading of said document, they are correct in saying so. Nor do I see where it gives congress or any other part of government the power to enforce anything, however minute, without passing legislation. Due process, rule of law. Know ye not these things?

The Constitution doesn't create any agencies at all. It does, however, allow Congress to do so.

Or, would you say that the authors had in mind the country operating entirely without agencies to perform the operations necessary?

Is it your Conressman's job to personally make sure every applicant for citizenship, for example (citizenship is mentioned in the Constitution) meets the requirements, or would you say that Congress is authorized to create an agency that carries out this operation?

There are gray areas that must be considered concerning immigration (or any other regulatory structure) where the agency itself is forced to create a governing regulation. Some government responsibilities simply cannot be carried out without this sort of leeway.

Congress voted to create the EPA. Congress voted to grant authority for the EPA to create regulations. If Congress doesn't like a particular regulation, they can act on it, as they have in the past.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Congress seez you should make roads safer to the Transport Department and no other specification the Transport department can pass any regulation it deems necessary to do that.

And the examples you put up there are exactly that: Congress being vague leaving it up to the executive to come up with a way to enforce the law.

Of course they can, so long as we ignore the constitution. Seems to be a common theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're purposefully mischaracterizing the executive order in question. Perhaps not your fault, given the overblown baloney all over the web about this.

The President is authorized in this area because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's an attempt to hurt the Russians for doing this.

The same (annex to) the EO bans oil importation too. Does this mean Obama is trying to cut off oir oil as well?

You can still buy and sell Russian Kalashnikov products here, you just can't import new ones from Russia. Also, Ak47's are manufactured in China, Romania, Yugoslavia, etc. so you can get a new one anytime, just not from Russia.

This will not limit firearms in even the slightest way, even if it becomes permanent.

Harte

Well either way, to me, its troubling that 0bama took it upon himself to punnish Russia, when our national security is uneffected, and call it a national emergency. It isnt a national emergency, and if he thought it was that important, he should have gone the legal rout and brought it before congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well either way, to me, its troubling that 0bama took it upon himself to punnish Russia, when our national security is uneffected, and call it a national emergency. It isnt a national emergency, and if he thought it was that important, he should have gone the legal rout and brought it before congress.

Well, if you don't like it you can sue against it, and no doubt in this day and age you can find enough money on Indigogo to do that.

If it is constitutional or not is still decided by the courts, not by us.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution doesn't create any agencies at all. It does, however, allow Congress to do so.

Or, would you say that the authors had in mind the country operating entirely without agencies to perform the operations necessary?

Is it your Conressman's job to personally make sure every applicant for citizenship, for example (citizenship is mentioned in the Constitution) meets the requirements, or would you say that Congress is authorized to create an agency that carries out this operation?

There are gray areas that must be considered concerning immigration (or any other regulatory structure) where the agency itself is forced to create a governing regulation. Some government responsibilities simply cannot be carried out without this sort of leeway.

Congress voted to create the EPA. Congress voted to grant authority for the EPA to create regulations. If Congress doesn't like a particular regulation, they can act on it, as they have in the past.

Harte

Again, I dont have a problem with enforcement agencies. The problem comes when said agency creates law. Congress doesnt have the authority to let other's rule over us with their own laws. I think DL has made a valid point. Especialy considering the amount of coruption through special interest we see in government everyday. Its bad enough through people we could potencialy hold responcible, let alone through people we cant vote out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I dont have a problem with enforcement agencies. The problem comes when said agency creates law. Congress doesnt have the authority to let other's rule over us with their own laws. I think DL has made a valid point. Especialy considering the amount of coruption through special interest we see in government everyday. Its bad enough through people we could potencialy hold responcible, let alone through people we cant vote out.

Think about the time the constitution was written, and lets use the department of transportation as an example. Were there cars when the constitution was written? Should our founding fathers have foreseen into the future 2000lb hunks of metal capable of doing 150 m.p.h on hundreds of thousands of miles worth of roads that connect nearly every square mile of our country? Should they have put speed limits and rules of the road in the constitution? Of course not. Now, should congress make the laws of the road? Is congress full of engineers that can determine the speed in which a vehicle can travel on a road safely? No. The department of transportation has to be responsible for making those laws and regulations, and they have the professionally trained personnel to do so.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, if you don't like it you can sue against it, and no doubt in this day and age you can find enough money on Indigogo to do that.

If it is constitutional or not is still decided by the courts, not by us.

Decided as in able to do anything about, thats true. But you dont need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Edit to add- I think its down right scary to believe we the people are incapable, or at least shouldnt express a opinion on whether or not somethings constitutional. Especialy in regards to a action given by one man, with no due process of legislating. No where does the constitution grant such a power.

Edited by preacherman76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about the time the constitution was written, and lets use the department of transportation as an example. Were there cars when the constitution was written? Should our founding fathers have foreseen into the future 2000lb hunks of metal capable of doing 150 m.p.h on hundreds of thousands of miles worth of roads that connect nearly every square mile of our country? Should they have put speed limits and rules of the road in the constitution? Of course not. Now, should congress make the laws of the road? Is congress full of engineers that can determine the speed in which a vehicle can travel on a road safely? No. The department of transportation has to be responsible for making those laws and regulations, and they have the professionally trained personnel to do so.

Federal government should have nothing to do with the department of transportation. That should be left to the individual states. That being the case yes transportation laws should be passed by state legislators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.