Ahhhh...the sweet smell of Socialism

[antarti]

I don't think oil is infinite (a theory among some Russian oil geologists) and I do think the days of cheap oil have ended.

Some Russian geologists have supposedly discovered what they term "abiotic" oil reserves. Oddly, no other tested reserves outside Russia yet show the same kind of makeup (they are all from "biotic" origin).

Don't get me wrong, being able to turn inorganic matter into oil would be a boon, but there is plenty to be skeptical about. Even turning organic matter into a crude-substitute by most of todays methods is a net energy-loser.

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall promulgate, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, any rules necessary for the enforcement of this section.

A constitutional question here: Since the power to legislate is Congress' alone, how come we have so much "Administrative" Law (hoping I'm using the right term)... what authorizes Congress to abdicate it's responsibility and delegate lawmaking to commissions and agencies? Has any Constitutional challenge to Administrative Law ever been proposed?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

There is nothing more oxymoronic than a tax and spender who believes in an individual RKBA. I get a good laugh out of the "pro-gun" people on a certain highly liberal forum. How you can have Marxist economic beliefs, yet support anarcho-libertarian social beliefs is beyond me.

I think you've created a false dichotomy and used charged words to describe the supposedly opposing thought processes that almost make debate on the issue impossible. I would submit that there is a wide universe between "Marxist economic beliefs" and "anarcho-libertarian social beliefs." It's called the real world in which most of us live. Calling names does not an argument make.

 

[Art Eatman]

antarti, it is common for Congress to set up some legal structure and then turn it over to some agency for enforcement. The agency then writes regulations which (supposedly) are in accord with the law and enable enforcement. The language commonly sez, "The Secretary shall..." (write such regulations as the law requires, or equivalent language).

Folks, if you want to get into discussions of Peak Oil, take it to APS.

This thread is about legislation and what it might mean to our rights--which in this instance apply to free travel.

I'm waiting for some Congressdoofus to bring up some format for rationing...

Art

 

[sm]

Note: following comments by me are not meant to be "sexist", poking fun at Congressdoofers yes...

I'm waiting for some Congressdoofus to bring up some format for rationing...

Which Congressdoofus do we dislike the most? Because I have surefire way to get that doofus out of Congress.

Plant in doofus' brain the idea to ration chocolate first, not gas.

Just hang on a sec., relates to taxes on gas...

See the seed is planted women use up gas to run to store for chocolate. When ladies, not even those involved in RKBA get wind of this, Congressdoofus will resign, forget about running for re-election, still recovering from getting the crap beat out him by umbrellas and purses.
Won't even have to time to even think about voting for this tax bit, much less vote.

Then we repeat and use instead of chocolate - nylons, shoes, WednesdayWineDay...etc., and run off all the Doofuses [or is that Doofi? - whatever] in Congress.

This taxing gas, and rationing stuff - never gets a chance.

No offense ladies, just thinking out of the box. I mean guys will take a Murray Lawn tractor to the Spirits store to get beer...you ladies at least have couth.

We the People may not be able to "ration" whiskey and pills on The Hill because doofus's got that stuff bootlegged anyway...err I mean regulated.

Kipling was right...

Female of the species is the deadlier of the two.

 

[antarti]

I apologize for the massive digression into the energy debate, sorry, I wish I had as much to offer on 2A issues as economics, lol!

antarti, it is common for Congress to set up some legal structure and then turn it over to some agency for enforcement. The agency then writes regulations which (supposedly) are in accord with the law and enable enforcement. The language commonly sez, "The Secretary shall..." (write such regulations as the law requires, or equivalent language).

Art, I know that this practice is very common. More precisely, what I am asking is how the Legislative Branch can both allow some other body to essentially make law, and then expect the executive to enforce it. I don't see that power expressed in the Constitution (much like how Congress in the last ~50 years decides not to declare war, but abdicates that power and delegates the decision to the executive).

I was just wondering if all this type of "law", created by agencies and not legislative vote, had been challenged. Seems like we could get rid of a good 70% of the most obnoxious anti-2A and anti-capitalism by such a challenge being successful.

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, lemme go back and re-phrase and mumble around.

Congress passes laws for enforcement by the Administration's various agencies. The agencies are given the power to write regulations which detail how enforcement is to be done and how affected parties must comply.

Omitting the issue of Executive Orders: SFAIK, the agencies cannot break new ground, where a regulation goes beyond what some law says--thus, "creating law". But, if that's done, somebody with standing to sue must bring that up in a federal court. Until that happens, "It's the law."

I hope that makes sense...

Art